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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 35 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 Donna Jones v. Secretary, Health and Human Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Donna Jones v. Secretary, Health and Human Services Anchor | green | “such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 14 |
| 2 | Winslow v. Commissioner of Social Security | green | “whether the findings of the alj are supported by substantial evidence.” | 13 |
| 3 | Nicole Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security | green | “conflicting evidence that would suggest further limitations, under the substantial evidence standard, administrative findings are not subject to reversal merely because substantial evidence exists in the record to support a different conclusion.” | 5 |
| 4 | Kuhn v. Commissioner of Social Security | green | “review of a decision of the commissioner of social security, made through an administrative law judge, is extremely circumscribed.” | 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.