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 4 cases, quoted by 57 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 United States v. Robert Waterman.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Robert Waterman Anchor | green | “where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” | 22 |
| 2 | Susan Haines v. Liggett Group Inc. | green | “clearly erroneous review function,” | 19 |
| 3 | Marks v. Struble | green | “clearly erroneous or contrary to law rests with the party filing the appeal.” | 10 |
| 4 | Williams v. American Cyanamid | green | “shall consider the appeal and/or cross-appeal and set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” | 6 |
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.