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 5 cases, quoted by 16 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 Rubsamen v. Wackman.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rubsamen v. Wackman Anchor | green | “required to sift through the record in search of facts supporting a party's position” | 4 |
| 2 | Kupchynsky v. Nardiello | green | “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record” | 3 |
| 3 | Weaver v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. | green | “because rodriguez's proffered excuse does not involve diligence in attempting to effectuate service, we find that her explanation is not valid, and therefore, it fails to raise a fact issue on diligence.” | 3 |
| 4 | Zacharie v. U.S. Natural Resources, Inc. | green | “a lack of due diligence can be found as a matter of law if the plaintiff offers no valid excuse for lack of service or 'if the lapse of time and the plaintiff's acts, or inaction, conclusively negate diligence.” | 3 |
| 5 | Rodriguez v. Tinsman & Houser, Inc. | green | “because rodriguez's proffered excuse does not involve diligence in attempting to effectuate service, we find that her explanation is not valid, and therefore, it fails to raise a fact issue on diligence.” | 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.