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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13 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 Marttila v. City of Lynchburg.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marttila v. City of Lynchburg Anchor | green | “an order conflicts with a transcript of related proceedings.” | 6 |
| 2 | Rose v. Commonwealth | green | “speaks through its orders and those orders are presumed to accurately reflect what transpired” | 4 |
| 3 | McBride v. Commonwealth | green | “we are not restricted to the precise, technical wording of a court's order when other evidence in the record clearly establishes that the court had a different intent.” | 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.