6 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 49 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 Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corporation Anchor | green | “consider the proper mix of factors” | 15 |
| 2 | Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corporation | green | “a 'fraud on the court' occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the …” | 10 |
| 3 | Cox v. Burke | green | “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering …” | 10 |
| 4 | Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corporation | green | “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering …” | 8 |
| 5 | Cox v. Burke | green | “clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the …” | 3 |
| 6 | Cox v. Burke | green | “sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.” | 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.