2 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 Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Board.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Board Anchor | green | “a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest.” | 7 |
| 2 | Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of Newton | green | “special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community.” | 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.