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 14 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 Michigan Soft Drink Ass'n v. Department of Treasury.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michigan Soft Drink Ass'n v. Department of Treasury Anchor | green | “the party challenging the constitutionality of legislation bears the burden of proof.” | 4 |
| 2 | McCarthy v. City of Cleveland | green | “have done so only where a specific private property interest is retroactively affected.” | 3 |
| 3 | McCarthy v. City of Cleveland | green | “that the takings clause 'is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge the power of a legislature to impose a mere monetary obligation without regard to an identifiable property interest,” | 3 |
| 4 | Commonwealth Edison Company v. United States | green | “while a taking may occur when a specific fund of money is involved, the mere imposition of an obligation to pay money, as here, does not give rise to a claim under the takings clause of the fifth amendment.” | 3 |
| 5 | Studier v. Michigan Public School Employees' Retirement Board | green | “a fundamental principle of the jurisprudence of both the united states and this state is that one legislature cannot bind the power of a successive legislature.” | 1 |
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.