2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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 United States v. Cavin.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Cavin Anchor | green | “by disallowing that testimony the district court deprived of an opportunity to present critical evidence that he lacked fraudulent intent in assisting with the transactions.” | 3 |
| 2 | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Steven B. Tencer and Ronald Lazar, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees | green | “even a routine or innocent mailing may supply the mailing element as long as it contributes to the execution of the scheme.” | 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.