9 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 269 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 Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility Anchor | green | “it is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant's case or arguments for him or her.” | 108 |
| 2 | Leek v. Powell | green | “in the absence of a transcript or a statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.” | 39 |
| 3 | Clay Cty. Manor v. State, D. of Health | green | “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a rational conclusion and such as to furnish a reasonably sound basis for the action under consideration.” | 28 |
| 4 | James R. Vandergriff v. Parkridge East Hospital | green | “are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts.” | 22 |
| 5 | Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp. | green | “shift the burden of litigating their case to the courts.” | 21 |
| 6 | Hessmer v. Hessmer | green | “mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant's adversary.” | 19 |
| 7 | Bobby Murray v. Dennis Miracle | green | “dig through the record in an attempt to discover arguments or issues that they may have made had they been represented by counsel.” | 16 |
| 8 | Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield | green | “an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” | 13 |
| 9 | Crowe v. Birmingham & Northwestern Railway Co. | green | “the tennessee supreme court will not adjudge the court of appeals in error for refusing to consider a case upon its merits, where the appellant has not complied with the rules of that court.” | 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.