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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 54 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 Cantwell v. Connecticut.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cantwell v. Connecticut Anchor | green | “remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” | 19 |
| 2 | Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder | green | “it is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this court's jurisdiction that normally the court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” | 12 |
| 3 | TX Alli for Retd Amer v. Scott | green | “we review a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, reviewing findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.” | 5 |
| 4 | Texas Midstream Gas Services, LLC v. City of Grand Prairie | green | “litigants retain a personal interest in a dispute at its inception and throughout the litigation.” | 4 |
| 5 | Barr v. City of Sinton | green | “although trfra places the burden of proving a substantial burden on the claimant, it places the burden of proving a compelling state interest on the government.” | 4 |
| 6 | Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs | green | “demonstrate a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; the threatened injury outweighs any harm that will result to the non- movant if the injunction is granted; and the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” | 4 |
| 7 | A.A. Ex Rel. Betenbaugh v. Needville Independent School District | green | “that means a burden imposing a less-than-complete ban is nonetheless substantial if it curtails religious conduct and impacts religious expression to a 'significant' and 'real' degree.” | 3 |
| 8 | Barr v. City of Sinton | green | “real vs. merely perceived, and significant vs. trivial” | 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.