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 3 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 Garrett v. Washington.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Garrett v. Washington Anchor | green | “a matter is moot if this court's ruling cannot for any reason have a practical legal effect on the existing controversy.” | 12 |
| 2 | Dale v. Beta-C, Inc | green | “proper syntax provides that commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent.” | 4 |
| 3 | Bloomfield Township v. Kane | green | “recourse to dictionary definitions is unnecessary when the legislature's intent can be determined from reading the statute itself.” | 2 |
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.