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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 65 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 Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury Anchor | green | “legislative history is irrelevant to the interpretation of an unambiguous statute.” | 29 |
| 2 | Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission | green | “unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, 'when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.” | 19 |
| 3 | Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission | green | “unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.” | 10 |
| 4 | Rubin v. United States | green | “when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.” | 7 |
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.