3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 11 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. City of Tacoma, Washington.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. City of Tacoma, Washington Anchor | green | “determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied substantive law.” | 4 |
| 2 | United States v. City of Tacoma, Washington | green | “we determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied substantive law.” | 4 |
| 3 | Robert McGRATH, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF NEVADA; And Bill Heafey, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellants | green | “the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” | 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.