7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 99 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 United States v. Swift & Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Swift & Co. Anchor | green | “nothing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed after years of litigation with the consent of all concerned.” | 30 |
| 2 | Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail | green | “bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” | 22 |
| 3 | Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail | green | “a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” | 20 |
| 4 | Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail | green | “a consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under federal law.” | 16 |
| 5 | Gloria Hodge, Lorenza Chavez and Elizabeth Duberry v. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Division, Dade County, Florida, Etc. | green | “institutional reform litigation.” | 5 |
| 6 | League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne | green | “district courts must take a flexible approach to motions to modify consent decrees and motions to modify or vacate institutional reform decrees.” | 3 |
| 7 | League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne | green | “flexibility is 'often essential to achieving the goals of reform litigation.” | 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.