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.
3 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 Vincent Daniels v. Hollister Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vincent Daniels v. Hollister Co. Anchor | green | “decisions of the federal courts of appeals are not binding on this court,” | 8 |
| 2 | Hodges v. Sasil Corp. | green | “the legislature's intent is paramount and, generally, the statutory language is the best indicator of that intent.” | 5 |
| 3 | Hodges v. Sasil Corp. | green | “statutory words are ascribed their ordinary meaning and are read in context with related provisions, giving sense to the legislation as a whole.” | 4 |
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.