4 canonical passages across 4 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. Medina.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Medina Anchor | green | “taken as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct standard” | 3 |
| 2 | People v. Souffrant | green | “we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the people and determine whether a valid line of reasoning exists that supports the essential elements of the crimes for which defendant stands convicted” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Gaudiosi | green | “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony while viewing the evidence in a neutral light and giving deference to the jury's credibility assessments” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Coffin | green | “which are solely within their province” | 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.