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 6 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 Milwaukee County Pavers Association v. Fiedler.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Milwaukee County Pavers Association v. Fiedler Anchor | green | “and action pursuant to a valid authorization is valid.” | 3 |
| 2 | James E. Clay, Mary Lou Clay, and Buddy Clay Realty, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Ncnb Texas National Bank, and Todd E. Bragg | green | “convinced, after an independent review of the record, that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” | 3 |
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.