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.
6 canonical passages across 5 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 Callahan v. Woods.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Callahan v. Woods Anchor | green | “purely secular' philosophical concerns.” | 10 |
| 2 | Brianna Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller | green | “take plaintiffs' conclusory assertions of violations of their religious beliefs at face value.” | 8 |
| 3 | Pullom v. United States Bakery | green | “because o.r.s. 659a.030 is modeled after title vii, plaintiff's state law discrimination claim can be analyzed together with her federal discrimination claim.” | 7 |
| 4 | Jerrold S. HELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EBB AUTO CO., Dba Ron Tonkin Mitsubishi, Defendant-Appellee | green | “because o.r.s. 659a.030 is modeled after title vii, plaintiff's state law discrimination claim can be analyzed together with her federal discrimination claim.” | 6 |
| 5 | Biden v. Missouri | green | “necessary to promote and protect patient health and safety.” | 5 |
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.