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 15 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 United States v. Fern.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Fern Anchor | green | “the government must show the absence of prejudice to the defendant's substantial rights.” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Joseph Lichenstein and Leo Bella | green | “made their knowing falsification with no intent to deceive.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Bodhan Gafyczk and Jorge Medina | green | “insure that the reach of 1001 is confined to reasonable bounds and not allowed to embrace trivial falsehoods.” | 3 |
| 4 | Johns v. Jarrard | green | “to determine whether the jury was misled and whether the jury understood the issues.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Kevin McKinley Seamus Moley, Joseph McColgan | green | “either implicitly or explicitly.” | 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.