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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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. Bylsma.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Bylsma Anchor | green | “we review for an abuse of discretion a circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss but review de novo the circuit court's rulings on underlying questions regarding the interpretation of the mmma, which the people enacted by initiative in november 2008.” | 4 |
| 2 | People v. Carruthers | green | “although the statutory provisions at issue refer to 'marihuana' . . . , by convention this court uses the more common spelling 'marijuana' in its opinions.” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Carruthers | green | “by convention this court uses the more common spelling 'marijuana' in its opinions.” | 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.