8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 70 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 Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy Anchor | green | “due process,' unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” | 34 |
| 2 | Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc. | green | “class certification under rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate only where the primary relief sought is declaratory or injunctive.” | 13 |
| 3 | Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray | green | “an abuse occurs when a court, in making a discretionary ruling, relies upon an improper factor, omits consideration of a factor entitled to substantial weight, or mulls the correct mix of factors but makes a clear error of judgment in assaying them.” | 7 |
| 4 | Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | green | “is recoverable as an equitable, make-whole remedy in employment class actions notwithstanding its monetary nature.” | 4 |
| 5 | Dolores DONINGER Et Al., Appellants, v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL, INC., Appellee | green | “judgment of the trial court should be given the greatest respect and the broadest discretion” | 3 |
| 6 | Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. | green | “decentralized, discretionary decisionmaking is not inherently discriminatory.” | 3 |
| 7 | Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | green | “and while the presence of excessive subjectivity, alone, does not necessarily create a common question of fact, where, as here, such subjectivity is part of a consistent corporate policy and supported by other evidence giving rise to an inference of discrimination, courts have n…” | 3 |
| 8 | Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | green | “plaintiffs may demonstrate commonality by showing that class members have shared legal issues by divergent facts or that they share a common core of facts but base their claims for relief on different legal theories.” | 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.