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 2 cases, quoted by 118 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. Carlos Enrique Ramirez-Chilel.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Carlos Enrique Ramirez-Chilel Anchor | green | “credibility determinations are typically the province of the fact finder because the fact finder personally observes the testimony and is thus in a better position than a reviewing court to assess the credibility of witnesses.” | 76 |
| 2 | United States v. Carlos Enrique Ramirez-Chilel | green | “understanding of the facts appears to be unbelievable.” | 33 |
| 3 | United States v. David E. Martinelli | green | “findings of fact for clear error and the application of the law to those facts de novo.” | 9 |
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.