3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 40 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 Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc. Anchor | green | “to examine the complaint, construed in favor of the plaintiff, to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient cause of action.” | 28 |
| 2 | Hughes v. Bemer | green | “the principle function of the motion to strike is to enable movement beyond the allegations in the pleadings, and to assist the court in its analysis of the evidence so as to ascertain whether an actual need for trial exists.” | 6 |
| 3 | Gulack v. Gulack | green | “the proper method to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint . . .” | 6 |
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.