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 Executive Branch Ethics Commission v. Stephens.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Executive Branch Ethics Commission v. Stephens Anchor | green | “unless to do so would constitute an absurd result.” | 5 |
| 2 | Executive Branch Ethics Commission v. Stephens | green | “the words of the statute are to be given their plain meaning unless to do so would constitute an absurd result.” | 4 |
| 3 | Revenue Cabinet, Commonwealth v. Gaba | green | “in the construction and interpretation of administrative regulations, the same rules apply that would be applicable to statutory construction and interpretation.” | 2 |
| 4 | Revenue Cabinet, Commonwealth v. Gaba | green | “the same rules apply that would be applicable to statutory construction and interpretation.” | 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.