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 3 cases, quoted by 44 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 Koon v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Koon v. United States Anchor | red | “only if the factor is present to an exceptional degree or in some other way makes the case different from the ordinary case where the factor is present.” | 38 |
| 2 | United States v. Miriam Aguirre | green | “informed by their vantage point and day-to-day experience in criminal sentencing,” | 3 |
| 3 | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Brenda Lee Working, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant | green | “required to articulate the reasons for the extent of the departure in sufficiently specific language to allow appellate review.” | 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.