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 55 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 Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Anchor | green | “we do not lightly assume that congress has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply, and our reluctance is even greater when congress has shown elsewhere in the same statute that it knows how to make such a requirement manifest.” | 49 |
| 2 | Virginia, Department of Medical Assistance Services v. Johnson | green | “federal and state governments jointly share the cost.” | 3 |
| 3 | Virginia, Department of Medical Assistance Services v. Johnson | green | “the intent was to stabilize the hospitals financially and preserve access to health care services for eligible low-income patients.” | 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.