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 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 Jeffrey J. Radowich v. United States Attorney, District of Maryland and United States Department of Justice, and Homer Gudelsky, Intervening.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeffrey J. Radowich v. United States Attorney, District of Maryland and United States Department of Justice, and Homer Gudelsky, Intervening Anchor | green | “clearly expressed intention as expressed without dissent in the legislative history” | 3 |
| 2 | Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Administration | green | “members of congress agreed with fda's assertions that it lacked jurisdiction” | 3 |
| 3 | Austin v. State | green | “widely condemned as pernicious altogether.” | 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.