3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 9 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 In Re Workers' Compensation Insurance Antitrust Litigation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Workers' Compensation Insurance Antitrust Litigation Anchor | green | “in applying the monsanto standard, we must view the evidence as a whole, rather than asking whether each item of evidence viewed in isolation meets the standard.” | 3 |
| 2 | In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation. Appeals of Robert A. Huggins | green | “susceptible of an innocent interpretation” | 3 |
| 3 | In Re Potash Antitrust Litigation | green | “meet a competitive price if that opportunity was available.” | 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.