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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 Patricia Ann Milone v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Patricia Ann Milone v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Anchor | green | “unless the evidence, together with all inferences that can be reasonably drawn therefrom is so one-sided in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could not disagree on the verdict,” | 9 |
| 2 | Anne P. Hendry v. Francis J. Pelland and Sadur, Pelland & Rubinstein, P.C. | green | “considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and making all reasonable inferences in their favor,” | 8 |
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.