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 7 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 Fluid Concepts, Inc. v. Da Apartments Ltd. Partnership.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fluid Concepts, Inc. v. Da Apartments Ltd. Partnership Anchor | green | “the party seeking to prevent enforcement bears the burden of proof on these three issues.” | 3 |
| 2 | Mill's Pride, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, and Mill's Pride Limited Partnership v. Continental Insurance Company | green | “balance the expectations of the parties to a contract with the interests of the states involved to determine which state's law to apply.” | 2 |
| 3 | Mill's Pride, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, and Mill's Pride Limited Partnership v. Continental Insurance Company | green | “michigan choice of law rules ... require a court to balance the expectations of the parties to a contract with the interests of the states involved to determine which state's law to apply.” | 2 |
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.