2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 4 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. Lumpkin v. Cassidy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People Ex Rel. Lumpkin v. Cassidy Anchor | green | “the judgments made by the legislature in crafting a statute are not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” | 2 |
| 2 | Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder | green | “the judgments made by the legislature in crafting a statute are not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” | 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.