3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 47 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 Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, and Maxine Kimmel v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, and Maxine Kimmel v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago Anchor | green | “an expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.” | 41 |
| 2 | Grappone, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc. | green | “of course, virtually every seller of a branded product has some customers who especially prefer its product. but to permit that fact alone to show market power is to condemn ties that are bound to be harmless, including some that may serve some useful social purpose.” | 3 |
| 3 | Digital Equipment Corporation v. Uniq Digital Technologies, Inc. | green | “the material dispute that called for a trial in kodak was whether the change in policy enabled kodak to extract supra-competitive prices from customers who had already purchased its machines” | 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.