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.
5 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 38 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 Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corporation Anchor | green | “unless it can be shown that no evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible.” | 13 |
| 2 | Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corporation | green | “in deciding whether to strike a rule 12(f) motion on the ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial, it is settled that the motion will be denied, unless it can be shown that no evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible.” | 9 |
| 3 | Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. | green | “immaterial' matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief, and 'impertinent' material consists of statements that do not pertain to, and are not necessary to resolve, the disputed issues.” | 6 |
| 4 | Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. | green | “a scandalous allegation is one that reflects unnecessarily on the defendant's moral character, or uses repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the court.” | 5 |
| 5 | Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. | green | “to prevail on a 12(f) motion, the moving party must demonstrate that: '(1) no evidence in support of the allegations would be admissible; (2) that the allegations have no bearing on the issues in the case; and (3) that to permit the allegations to stand would result in prejudice…” | 5 |
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.