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.
3 canonical passages across 3 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 Caver v. City of Trenton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caver v. City of Trenton Anchor | green | “show that the information sought is relevant to the subject matter of the action and may lead to admissible evidence.” | 15 |
| 2 | Joanna Pacitti, a Minor, by Joseph Pacitti, and Stella Pacitti, Her Parents and Guardians v. MacY MacY East, Inc | green | “any nonprivileged material that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' r…” | 12 |
| 3 | Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. | green | “relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” | 12 |
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.