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 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 William D. Sheetz v. Yolanda Slaughter.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | William D. Sheetz v. Yolanda Slaughter Anchor | green | “incorrect conclusions of law will not require reversal if the controlling findings of fact will support a correct legal theory.” | 4 |
| 2 | Garcia v. TAUTENHAHN | green | “if there is any evidence of a probative nature to support the trial court's judgment, we will not set it aside, and we may not substitute our findings of fact for those of the trial court.” | 3 |
| 3 | William D. Sheetz v. Yolanda Slaughter | green | “the appellant may not challenge a trial court's conclusions of law for factual insufficiency; however, the reviewing court may review the trial court's legal conclusions drawn from the facts to determine their correctness.” | 3 |
| 4 | Sharifi v. Steen Automotive, LLC | green | “if there is any evidence of a probative nature to support the trial court's judgment, we will not set it aside, and we may not substitute our findings of fact for those of the trial court.” | 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.