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 In Re Ruiz.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Ruiz Anchor | green | “to carry out the recommendation of the governor's committee to promote adoption that parental rights be terminated or families reunified within twelve months.” | 3 |
| 2 | Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Atterbury | green | “this court cannot do the required task if an expert does not cite to and explain precisely the studies that he relies upon” | 3 |
| 3 | Monsanto Co. v. Davis | green | “plainly prevented spencer from presenting her case to us” | 3 |
| 4 | America West Airlines, Inc. v. Tope | green | “though expert testified that there had been books and articles published in the field, he did not name any book, article, or publication of any type” | 3 |
| 5 | Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co. | green | “rebuttal evidence is evidence given to disprove facts given in evidence by an adverse party.” | 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.