5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 102 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 Boarman v. Jaynes.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boarman v. Jaynes Anchor | green | “when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain language in its normal and accepted use.” | 31 |
| 2 | Houghton v. Aramark Educational Resources, Inc. | green | “to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope.” | 29 |
| 3 | Osborn v. Marr | green | “legislative intent is determined 'from the natural and ordinary meaning of the statutory language within the context of the entire statute without any forced or subtle construction that would extend or limit the statute's meaning.” | 20 |
| 4 | In Re Estate of Davis | green | “it is only when a statute is ambiguous that we may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources.” | 19 |
| 5 | Houghton v. Aramark Educational Resources, Inc. | green | “ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope.” | 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.