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.
3 canonical passages across 2 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 Gakuba v. Kurtz.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gakuba v. Kurtz Anchor | green | “research the issues on the appellant's behalf.” | 5 |
| 2 | U.S. Bank v. Lindsey | green | “a repository into which an appellant may 'dump the burden of argument and research,' nor is it the obligation of this court to act as an advocate or seek error in the record.” | 4 |
| 3 | U.S. Bank v. Lindsey | green | “entitled to have the issues clearly defined and supported by pertinent authority and cohesive arguments; we are not merely a repository into which an appellant may 'dump the burden of argument and research,' nor is it the obligation of this court to act as an advocate or seek er…” | 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.