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 People Ex Rel. Madigan v. Kinzer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People Ex Rel. Madigan v. Kinzer Anchor | green | “any violation of the illinois controlled substances act” | 3 |
| 2 | People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n | green | “substantial weight and deference to an interpretation of an ambiguous statute by the agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the statute” | 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.