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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 8 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 Evans v. Artek Systems Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Evans v. Artek Systems Corporation Anchor | green | “the ability to deny one's opponent the services of capable counsel, is a potent weapon” | 4 |
| 2 | Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutions | green | “disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is an extraordinary remedy and should only be resorted to sparingly.” | 4 |
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.