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 6 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 Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Glazer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Glazer Anchor | green | “failed to sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the predicate notice of termination was served” | 3 |
| 2 | Rinaldi & Sons, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Service, Inc. | green | “when the evidence comes down to one interested party's word against the other interested party's word, in the absence of some reason to weight one party's testimony more than another, the evidence is in equipoise and the proponent, petitioner, does not satisfy her burden of prov…” | 3 |
| 3 | Engel v. Lighterman | green | “constitutes prima facie proof of its service” | 3 |
| 4 | Kardanis v. Velis | green | “accord the testimony of a disinterested witness like a process server more weight than an interested witness like a party” | 3 |
| 5 | Rox Riv 83 Partners v. Ettinger | green | “would be outweighed by the testimony of a defendant denying service” | 3 |
| 6 | George Doulaveris & Son, Inc. v. P.J. 37 Food Corp. | green | “the court and the parties with notice of material elements of each defense” | 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.