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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 169 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 Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission Anchor | green | “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” | 102 |
| 2 | Timex v. United States | green | “to ascertain whether congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, the court employs the 'traditional tools of statutory construction.” | 23 |
| 3 | American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States | green | “the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency when the choice is 'between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” | 21 |
| 4 | Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States Department of Commerce | green | “court will sustain the determination if it is reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, including whatever fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.” | 14 |
| 5 | Transcom, Inc. v. United States | green | “an agency does not act rationally when it chooses and implements one policy and decides to consider the merits of a potentially inconsistent policy in the very near future,” | 6 |
| 6 | American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States | green | “between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” | 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.