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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 68 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 Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. Anchor | green | “a scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some contexts raise serious constitutional questions.” | 29 |
| 2 | Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. | green | “are necessarily permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law.” | 22 |
| 3 | People Ex Rel. Clancy v. Superior Court | green | “to disqualify counsel when necessary in the furtherance of justice.” | 6 |
| 4 | State v. Simpson | green | “due process of law requires fundamental fairness, i.e., a fair trial in a fair tribunal.” | 5 |
| 5 | McDonald v. Goldstein | green | “it is the people's prerogative, not the district attorney's to say who will preside over the county court of kings county.” | 3 |
| 6 | McDonald v. Goldstein | green | “the district attorney for some time past has selected the judge in each case by moving indictments for trial directly to the several parts of the court” | 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.