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 People v. Hall.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Hall Anchor | green | “draw an unfavorable inference based on a party's failure to call a witness who would normally be expected to support that party's version of events” | 4 |
| 2 | In re Adam K. | green | “a treating psychiatrist, as opposed to reviewing doctors, possesses the greatest knowledge about the patient and information on a material issue raised in the proceeding” | 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.