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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 99 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 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” | 82 |
| 2 | Emmett Mann v. John Brenner | green | “in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to stay discovery while evaluating a motion to dismiss where, if the motion is granted, discovery would be futile.” | 9 |
| 3 | Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. | green | “the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection.” | 8 |
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.