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 5 cases, quoted by 47 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 Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey Anchor | green | “so long as the alternatives are reasonable and the agency discusses them in reasonable detail.” | 19 |
| 2 | Everett, Frank E. v. United States | green | “will prevail unless it is 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent' with the plain terms of the disputed regulations.” | 11 |
| 3 | National Treasury Employees Union v. Horner | green | “task is to determine 'whether the agency's decisionmaking was reasoned,' ... i.e., whether it considered relevant factors and explained the facts and policy concerns on which it relied, and whether those facts have some basis in the record.” | 11 |
| 4 | Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater | green | “cause effects which are significantly different from those already studied.” | 3 |
| 5 | National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Blanck | green | “section 106 is universally interpreted as requiring agencies to consult and consider and not to engage in any particular preservation activities per se” | 3 |
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.