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 2 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 Defenders Of Wildlife v. Norton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Defenders Of Wildlife v. Norton Anchor | green | “significant portion of its range” | 5 |
| 2 | Defenders Of Wildlife v. Norton | green | “if there are major geographical areas in which it is no longer viable but once was.” | 4 |
| 3 | Defenders Of Wildlife v. Norton | green | “a species can be extinct 'throughout ... a significant portion of its range' if there are major geographical areas in which it is no longer viable but once was.” | 2 |
| 4 | Defenders of Wildlife v. Secretary, United States Department of the Interior | green | “effect of rendering the phrase significant portion of its range superfluous.” | 2 |
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.