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 Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion).
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion) Anchor | green | “in determining the plain and ordinary meaning of a word, courts may look to dictionary definitions of the word as well as the 'meaning that the word has acquired when . . . used in case law.” | 4 |
| 2 | State v. Bertram | green | “in determining the plain and ordinary meaning of a word, courts may look to dictionary definitions of the word as well as the 'meaning that the word has acquired when . . . used in case law.” | 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.