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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Casillas v. United States Navy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Casillas v. United States Navy Anchor | green | “district court must decide which party's explanation of the employer's motivation it believes.' we will reverse that factual determination only if it is clearly erroneous ... and we will not ransack the record, searching for mistakes.” | 4 |
| 2 | Margaret Spaulding, and James Bush, Intervenors-Appellants v. University of Washington | red | “proper supportive facts and the absence of variables.” | 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.