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 Wright v. Pate.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wright v. Pate Anchor | green | “because appellant has filed no motion for recusal, we must hold that appellant has waived such right in conjunction with the january 30, 2002 hearing and subsequent order filed february 13, 2002.” | 3 |
| 2 | Lofton v. Lofton | green | “because mr. lofton did not file a motion for recusal, we would usually hold that he has waived such right in conjunction with the hearings before the trial court.” | 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.