Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 19 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Kapperman.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Kapperman Anchor | green | “to assure that penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written.” | 6 |
| 2 | People v. Cornett | green | “identical language appearing in separate statutory provisions should receive the same interpretation when the statutes cover the same or analogous subject matter.” | 5 |
| 3 | People v. Floyd | green | “a reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.