7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 32 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 Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States Anchor | green | “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” | 7 |
| 2 | Cleo Inc. v. United States | green | “evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 5 |
| 3 | AL Muni Distr Grp v. FERC | green | “but in fact it seems inescapable that neither standing nor ripeness could properly grow out of a harm predicated on a potential col- lateral estoppel effect.” | 4 |
| 4 | Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc. | green | “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of prob- lems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” | 4 |
| 5 | Cleo Inc. v. United States | green | “requires only that there be evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 4 |
| 6 | Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co Deutschland Kg v. C.H. Patrick, Co. | green | “the requirement of 'two or more years of . . . computer programming associated with treatment plan optimization” | 4 |
| 7 | Hyosung TNS Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n | green | “the potential for collateral consequences” | 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.