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.
4 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 People v. Wolff.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Wolff Anchor | green | “relevant to provide background information concerning the context and history of defendant's relationship with the victim” | 6 |
| 2 | People v. Mull | green | “it is well settled that 'an exercise of a trial court's sandoval discretion should not be disturbed merely because the court did not provide a detailed recitation of its underlying reasoning . . . , particularly where, as here, the basis of the court's decision may be inferred f…” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Harris | green | “did not need to address any issues” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Olson | green | “intentional violation of prior court orders bore on his honesty, truthfulness and willingness to advance his own interests at the expense of society, all bearing on his testimonial credibility” | 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.