3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 29 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 Safir v. United States Lines Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Safir v. United States Lines Inc. Anchor | green | “a district court not only may but should protect its ability to carry out its constitutional functions against the threat of onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation.” | 13 |
| 2 | Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division | green | “here litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.” | 12 |
| 3 | Maduakolam v. Columbia University | green | “rule 11 applies both to represented and pro se litigants . . .” | 4 |
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.