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 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 Antonio Pou Pacheco, D/B/A Torrefaccion Mi Tacita, Pou De Pou, Ilba Maida, and Their Conjugal Partnership v. Carlos Soler Aquino, Etc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Antonio Pou Pacheco, D/B/A Torrefaccion Mi Tacita, Pou De Pou, Ilba Maida, and Their Conjugal Partnership v. Carlos Soler Aquino, Etc. Anchor | green | “background of strong congressional support for the fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons and businesses, as well as congress' expressed willingness to depart from traditional notions of valuation and eminent domain.” | 3 |
| 2 | Antonio Pou Pacheco, D/B/A Torrefaccion Mi Tacita, Pou De Pou, Ilba Maida, and Their Conjugal Partnership v. Carlos Soler Aquino, Etc. | green | “were free to fashion the special relief they did,” | 3 |
| 3 | Boston v. United States | green | “may fairly represent then-existing available facilities.” | 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.