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 12 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 People v. Anderson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Anderson Anchor | green | “within the meaning of the statute. 21 the statute does not contain a definition of the word” | 3 |
| 2 | Otani v. District Court Ex Rel. Twenty-First Judicial District | green | “a declaration that asserts or implies the existence or nonexistence of a fact.” | 3 |
| 3 | Otani v. District Court Ex Rel. Twenty-First Judicial District | green | “within the meaning of the statute. 21 the statute does not contain a definition of the word” | 3 |
| 4 | Tate v. Colorado Department of Revenue | green | “to guard against the potential for any erroneous deprivation of the driving privilege by providing an opportunity for a full hearing.” | 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.