4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 15 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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. v. United States Anchor | green | “in determining whether commerce's interpretation is reasonable, the court considers, among other factors, the express terms of the provisions at issue, the objectives of those provisions and the objectives of the antidumping scheme as a whole.” | 5 |
| 2 | Timken Co. v. United States | green | “commerce may, in certain circumstances, reasonably change its methodology from review to review.” | 4 |
| 3 | Timken Co. v. United States | green | “acts reasonably in placing the burden of establishing adjustments on a respondent that seeks the adjustments and that has access to the necessary information” | 3 |
| 4 | NSK Ltd. v. United States | green | “adhere to its prior reporting methodology, especially where commerce is striving for more accuracy” | 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.