4 canonical passages across 4 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 San Francisco Unified School District Ex Rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Francisco Unified School District Ex Rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. Anchor | green | “qui tam is short for the latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means "who pursues this action on our lord the king's behalf as well as his own.” | 6 |
| 2 | Ennabe v. Manosa | green | “where the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.” | 4 |
| 3 | Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. | green | “california has definitively adopted the substantial factor test of the restatement second of torts for cause-in-fact determinations.” | 4 |
| 4 | Pugliese v. Superior Court | green | “in the light most favorable to” | 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.