7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 43 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 Watt v. Alaska.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Watt v. Alaska Anchor | green | “we must read the statutes to give effect to each if we can do so while preserving their sense and purpose.” | 22 |
| 2 | In Re Weisman | green | “we independently review the bankruptcy court's decision and do not give deference to the district court's determinations.” | 6 |
| 3 | In Re Precision Industries, Inc. | green | “the statutory provisions themselves do not suggest that one supersedes or limits the other.” | 3 |
| 4 | Simson v. Burkart (In Re Simpson) | green | “we independently review the bankruptcy court's decision and do not give deference to the district court's determinations.” | 3 |
| 5 | In Re Churchill Properties III, Ltd. Partnership | green | “each provision seems to provide an exclusive right that when invoked would override the interest of the other.” | 3 |
| 6 | In Re Churchill Properties III, Ltd. Partnership | green | “the specific prevails over the general.” | 3 |
| 7 | In Re Taylor | green | “the legislative history regarding 365 evinces a clear intent on the part of congress to protect a tenant's estate when the landlord files bankruptcy,” | 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.