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 162 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 Linkletter v. Walker.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Linkletter v. Walker Anchor | red | “we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” | 102 |
| 2 | Cipriano v. City of Houma | green | “where a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity.” | 60 |
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.