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 Nba Properties, Inc. v. Richard Gold.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nba Properties, Inc. v. Richard Gold Anchor | green | “redounding to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” | 5 |
| 2 | Julio Porrata v. Leonardo Gonzalez-Rivera, Etc. | green | “a lucid and unambiguous consent order has been violated” | 2 |
| 3 | Julio Porrata v. Leonardo Gonzalez-Rivera, Etc. | green | “a motion for contempt will be granted only if the complainant can offer clear and convincing evidence that a lucid and unambiguous consent order has been violated.” | 2 |
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.