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 5 cases, quoted by 22 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 Big Apple Food Vendors' Ass'n v. Street Vendor Review Panel.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big Apple Food Vendors' Ass'n v. Street Vendor Review Panel Anchor | green | “provides an adequate objective, intelligible standard for administrative action” | 4 |
| 2 | General Electric Capital Corp. v. New York State Division of Tax Appeals | green | “an agency can adopt regulations that go beyond the text of that legislation, provided that they are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes” | 3 |
| 3 | Weiss v. City of New York | green | “out of harmony' with an applicable statute” | 3 |
| 4 | Medicon Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. v. Perales | green | “assure that the funds which have been set aside for (providing medical services to the needy) will not be fraudulently diverted into the hands of an untrustworthy provider of services” | 3 |
| 5 | Medicon Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. v. Perales | green | “inherent authority to protect the quality and value of services rendered by medicaid providers” | 3 |
| 6 | Medicon Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. v. Perales | green | “will not be fraudulently diverted into the hands of an untrustworthy provider of services” | 3 |
| 7 | Yates v. Genesee County Hospice Foundation, Inc. | green | “recognition of a private cause of action in favor of petitioners based upon respondents' alleged violation of the statute . . . would not be consistent with the legislative scheme” | 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.