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.
2 canonical passages across 2 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 People v. Bylsma.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Bylsma Anchor | green | “a ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” | 11 |
| 2 | People v. Kolanek; People v. King | green | “because the mmma was the result of a voter initiative, our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate, rather than the legislature, as reflected in the language of the law itself.” | 4 |
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.