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 State v. Roma.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Roma Anchor | green | “a witness likewise may not rightfully refuse to answer questions when he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant.” | 3 |
| 2 | Cagiva North America, Inc. v. Schenk | green | “there is a presumption that the legislature, in enacting a law, did so in view of existing relevant statutes and intended it to be read with them so as to make one consistent body of law.” | 3 |
| 3 | Willoughby v. City of New Haven | green | “the fact that the statute might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid.” | 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.