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.
7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 29 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 Center for Food Safety v. Jewell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Center for Food Safety v. Jewell Anchor | green | “if a finding of preclusion could foreclose all meaningful judicial review; if the suit is wholly collateral to a statute's review provisions; and if the claims are outside the agency's expertise.” | 5 |
| 2 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Secretary of the Air Force | green | “plaintiffs are masters of their complaints” | 4 |
| 3 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Secretary of the Air Force | green | “to wear military uniforms while performing civilian duties.” | 4 |
| 4 | Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta | green | “alter the rights or interests of parties.” | 4 |
| 5 | Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta | green | “implicitly precludes district court jurisdiction over the claims” | 4 |
| 6 | Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta | green | “it is quite different to suggest, as appellant does, that a detailed scheme of administrative adjudication impliedly precludes preenforcement judicial review of rules.” | 4 |
| 7 | Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Trump | green | “assuming that some universe of viable” | 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.