3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 39 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 Sykes v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sykes v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. Anchor | green | “but, rule 20 does not authorize a plaintiff to add claims 'against different parties that present entirely different factual and legal issues.” | 16 |
| 2 | Jose Aleman v. Chugach Support Services, Incorporated | green | “and, a court may 'deny joinder if it determines that the addition of the party under rule 20 will not foster the objectives of promoting convenience and expediting the resolution of disputes, but will result in prejudice, expense, or delay.” | 15 |
| 3 | Sykes v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. | green | “rule 20 does not authorize a plaintiff to add claims 'against different parties that present entirely different factual and legal issues.” | 8 |
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.