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 52 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 BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation Anchor | green | “it is generally presumed that congress acts intentionally and purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.” | 39 |
| 2 | Miller v. French | green | “establishes standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions.” | 7 |
| 3 | National People's Action v. Village of Wilmette and Fred W. Stoecker | green | “protecting its citizens from criminal elements.” | 3 |
| 4 | Clinton Morse Watson v. Robert Ray,appellees | green | “appellant could only point to 'the looming threat of potential overcrowding' but did not produce any evidence to support a finding that this threat constitutes a 'current and ongoing violation' under the plra.” | 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.