2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 8 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 KALB Et Ux. v. FEUERSTEIN Et Ux..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KALB Et Ux. v. FEUERSTEIN Et Ux. Anchor | green | “the action of the ... court was not merely erroneous but was beyond its power, void, and subject to collateral attack” | 4 |
| 2 | Kalb v. Feuerstein | green | “the action of the ... court was not merely erroneous but was beyond its power, void, and subject to collateral attack” | 4 |
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.