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.
5 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 Mynor Tun-Cos v. B. Perrotte.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mynor Tun-Cos v. B. Perrotte Anchor | green | “if the context is not new . . . then a bivens remedy” | 4 |
| 2 | William Bulger v. Hugh Hurwitz | green | “proceed to the second step and ask whether there are any special factors that counsel hesitation about granting the extension' of bivens.” | 4 |
| 3 | William Bulger v. Hugh Hurwitz | green | “the supreme court has warned lower courts to act with utmost hesitation when faced with actions that do not fall precisely under bivens, davis, or carlson,” | 4 |
| 4 | Vernon Earle v. Shreves | green | “nevertheless offers the possibility of meaningful relief and therefore remains relevant to the court's analysis.” | 3 |
| 5 | Mynor Tun-Cos v. B. Perrotte | green | “a radical difference is not required.” | 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.