6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 20 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 Flores v. Employees Retirement System of Texas.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Flores v. Employees Retirement System of Texas Anchor | green | “explain its reasoning when it 'appears to the reviewing court that an agency has departed from its earlier administrative policy or there exists an apparent inconsistency in agency determinations.” | 5 |
| 2 | State v. PUBLIC UTILITY COM'S OF TEXAS | green | “where the statutory text is unambiguous, we adopt a construction supported by the statute's plain language, unless that construction would lead to an absurd result.” | 3 |
| 3 | City of El Paso v. El Paso Electric Co. | green | “courts, however, frequently require that an agency explain its reasoning when it 'appears to the reviewing court that an agency has departed from its earlier administrative policy or there exists an apparent inconsistency in agency determinations.” | 3 |
| 4 | City of El Paso v. El Paso Electric Co. | green | “implies a power in the reviewing court to require the commission to supply any reasons or explanations necessary for the reviewing court to understand the commission's final order.” | 3 |
| 5 | Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson | green | “pleadings in another case that are inconsistent with a party's position in a present action are quasi-admissions, which are treated as some evidence.” | 3 |
| 6 | Texaco Producing, Inc. v. Fortson Oil Co. | green | “the reviewing court is concerned not with the correctness of the administrative order, but with its reasonableness.” | 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.