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 Briseno v. City of Santa Ana.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Briseno v. City of Santa Ana Anchor | green | “invalid provisions of a statute should be severed whenever possible to preserve the validity of the remainder of the statute.” | 4 |
| 2 | Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego | green | “even if the statute following severability is not what the enacting body originally intended, the courts can sustain the statute if severance is mechanically feasible and the legislative body would have preferred such an outcome to total invalidation” | 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.