## Why is this an issue?

Even if it is legal, mixing case and non-case labels in the body of a switch statement is very confusing and can even be the result of a typing error.

### Noncompliant code example

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
      case TUESDAY:
      WEDNESDAY:   // Noncompliant; syntactically correct, but behavior is not what's expected
        doSomething();
        break;
      ...
    }

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
        break;
      case TUESDAY:
        foo:for(int i = 0 ; i < X ; i++) {  // Noncompliant; the code is correct and behaves as expected but is barely readable
             /* ... */
            break foo;  // this break statement doesn't relate to the nesting case TUESDAY
             /* ... */
        }
        break;
        /* ... */
    }

### Compliant solution

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
      case TUESDAY:
      case WEDNESDAY:
        doSomething();
        break;
      ...
    }

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
        break;
      case TUESDAY:
        compute(args); // put the content of the labelled "for" statement in a dedicated method
        break;

        /* ... */
    }