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 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 Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Anchor | green | “indicate the spirit and motivation behind the drafting of the rule, and they serve as guidelines for understanding the purpose for which the rule was drafted” | 7 |
| 2 | Womer v. Hilliker | green | “we incorporated equitable considerations in the form of a doctrine of substantial compliance into rule 126, giving the trial courts the latitude to overlook any 'procedural defect' that does not prejudice a party's rights.” | 5 |
| 3 | Touloumes v. E.S.C. Inc. | green | “effective october 1, 2021, "rule” | 5 |
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.