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 5 cases, quoted by 1,251 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 Karen Laughlin v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Augustus Melton, Jr..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Karen Laughlin v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Augustus Melton, Jr. Anchor | green | “does not have an obligation to notify parties of the obvious.” | 286 |
| 2 | E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. | green | “where the parties have not had an opportunity for reasonable discovery.” | 226 |
| 3 | Bosiger v. US Airways, Inc. | green | “is not to consider matters outside the pleadings or resolve factual disputes when ruling on a motion to dismiss.” | 189 |
| 4 | Thurza Strag v. Board of Trustees, Craven Community College Craven Community College, (Two Cases) | green | “where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” | 177 |
| 5 | Harrods Limited v. Sixty Internet Domain Names | green | “the party opposing summary judgment 'cannot complain that summary judgment was granted without discovery unless that party has made an attempt to oppose the motion on the grounds that more time was needed for discovery.” | 132 |
| 6 | Harrods Limited v. Sixty Internet Domain Names | green | “the failure to file an affidavit . . . is itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.” | 107 |
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.