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 11 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 Creative Bath Products, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Creative Bath Products, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Anchor | green | “consisted of the proposition that defendants had made three fraudulent representations in pursuit of a single short-lived goal,” | 6 |
| 2 | Beauford v. Helmsley | yellow | “our analysis of relatedness and continuity has shifted from the enterprise element to the pattern element.” | 5 |
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.