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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 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 Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau Chemco, Inc. Wesco, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau Chemco, Inc. Wesco, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles Anchor | green | “the complaint ... involves a sensitive area of social policy that is best left to the states to address.” | 3 |
| 2 | Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau Chemco, Inc. Wesco, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles | green | “the proper resolution of the potentially determinative state law issue is uncertain.” | 3 |
| 3 | Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District | green | “in view of the long tradition of local regulation and the legislatively imposed duty on local governments to preserve and protect the public health, preemption may not be lightly found.” | 3 |
| 4 | Sports Committee District 37 A.M.A., Inc. v. County of San Bernardino | green | “forbids direct actions against an insurer absent a final judgment against the insured.” | 3 |
| 5 | Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal. | green | “duplicative of the claims against the city.” | 3 |
| 6 | Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal. | green | “remaining individual capacity claims” | 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.