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 48 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 Wilkie v. Robbins.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wilkie v. Robbins Anchor | green | “whether any alternative, existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason for the judicial branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.” | 21 |
| 2 | Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko | green | “consistently refused to extend bivens liability to any new context or new category of defendants.” | 17 |
| 3 | Wilkie v. Robbins | green | “any alternative, existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason for the judicial branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.” | 10 |
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.