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.
12 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 951 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 Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. Anchor | green | “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.” | 157 |
| 2 | Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States | green | “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” | 150 |
| 3 | Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. | green | “the scope of review under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” | 147 |
| 4 | Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. | green | “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” | 134 |
| 5 | Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. | green | “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.” | 120 |
| 6 | Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. | green | “sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness.” | 107 |
| 7 | Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. | green | “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” | 46 |
| 8 | Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. | green | “we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.” | 38 |
| 9 | Center for Food Safety v. Salazar | green | “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” | 27 |
| 10 | Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States | green | “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” | 15 |
| 11 | City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n | green | “if the intent of congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of congress.” | 6 |
| 12 | Ecology Center v. Castaneda | green | “only if the agency relied on factors congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a differ…” | 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.