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 4 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 Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe Anchor | green | “statute's text is encompassing, clear on its face, and productive of a plausible result,” | 3 |
| 2 | O'Connell v. Shalala | green | “to design, structure and purpose as well as to aggregate language.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Richard Falvey, A/K/A \Dick Foley | green | “courts are not bound to read a statute literally in a manner entirely at odds with its history and apparent intent.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Shaun K. O'Neil | green | “at the end of a thorough inquiry, the meaning of a criminal statute remains obscure” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Shaun K. O'Neil | green | “properly comes into play when, at the end of a thorough inquiry, the meaning of a criminal statute remains obscure.” | 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.