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.
5 canonical passages across 3 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 Smith v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith v. State Anchor | green | “eligibility is not to be liberally permitted.” | 6 |
| 2 | In re Weil | green | “to the interpretation of statutory language by the agency charged with the expertise and responsibility to administer the scheme . . . 'unless the interpretation is” | 6 |
| 3 | Smith v. State | green | “an employee is entitled to such liberality . . . when eligible for benefits, . . . eligibility is not to be liberally permitted.” | 4 |
| 4 | William W. Lisowski v. Borough of Avalon And | green | “if there is any fair argument in support of the course taken by the agency or any reasonable ground for difference of opinion among intelligent and conscientious officials, the decision” | 3 |
| 5 | Smith v. State | green | “instead, . . . the applicable guidelines must be carefully interpreted so as not to 'obscure or override considerations of . . . a potential adverse impact on the financial integrity of the fund.” | 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.