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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 290 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 Rita v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rita v. United States Anchor | green | “the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” | 134 |
| 2 | Sells v. United States | green | “the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” | 65 |
| 3 | Walton v. Arizona | red | “trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.” | 52 |
| 4 | Rita v. United States | green | “the appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances.” | 39 |
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.