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.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group Anchor | green | “limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the commission's findings of fact and whether the findings support the commission's conclusions of law.” | 6 |
| 2 | Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group | green | “duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the findings.” | 5 |
| 3 | Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group | green | “is limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the commission's findings of fact and whether the findings support the commission's conclusions of law.” | 4 |
| 4 | London v. Snak Time Catering, Inc. | green | “authorized payment to family members for attendant care provided to an injured family member.” | 2 |
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.