5 canonical passages across 5 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 Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Act, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Act, Inc. Anchor | green | “are not an opportunity to argue what could have been, but was not, argued in the original set of moving and responsive papers.” | 7 |
| 2 | Koken v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. | green | “evidenced a clear intent to bar any tort recovery for economic loss, instead opting to encourage recovery through readily available warranty claims, thereby preventing overlapping claims.” | 3 |
| 3 | Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “generally, the moving party is not entitled to raise new arguments that could have been addressed in the original moving and responsive papers.” | 3 |
| 4 | Dittman, B., Aplt. v. UPMC | green | “a supervening change in governing law that calls into question the correctness of the court's judgment may . . . constitute such an extraordinary circumstance justifying the granting of a rule 60(b)(6) motion.” | 3 |
| 5 | Harter v. GAF Corp. | green | “might materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” | 3 |
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.