11 canonical passages across 11 cases, quoted by 430 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 Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Astrue Anchor | green | “an alj has a duty to fully develop the record before drawing any conclusions . . . and must adequately articulate his analysis so that we can follow his reasoning . . . .” | 155 |
| 2 | Meuser v. Colvin | green | “we will uphold an alj's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, but that standard is not satisfied unless the alj has adequately supported his conclusions.” | 145 |
| 3 | Brenda Warnell v. Martin J. O'Malley | green | “ubstantial evidence a standard that the supreme court has emphasized is light.” | 22 |
| 4 | Christopher Jozefyk v. Nancy Berryhill | green | “it is unclear what kinds of work restrictions might address jozefyk's limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace because he hypothesizes none.” | 21 |
| 5 | Kenneth Scrogham v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “this 'sound-bite' approach to record evaluation is an impermissible methodology for evaluating the evidence.” | 19 |
| 6 | Gail Martin v. Andrew M. Saul | green | “although complains that the pace requirements are too vague, there is only so much specificity possible in crafting an rfc. the law required no more.” | 15 |
| 7 | Alice Gedatus v. Andrew Saul | green | “we will not reweigh the evidence, resolve debatable evidentiary conflicts, determine credibility, or substitute our judgment for the alj's determination so long as substantial evidence supports it.” | 14 |
| 8 | Armstrong v. Barnhart | green | “our review of the record indicates that the alj was not 'playing doctor,' but performing his duty to consider and weigh the evidence.” | 13 |
| 9 | Villano v. Astrue | green | “although briefly described villano's testimony about her daily activities, he did not, for example, explain whether villano's activities were consistent or inconsistent with the pain and limitations she claimed.” | 11 |
| 10 | Israel v. Colvin | green | “a contradictory opinion of a non-examining physician does not, by itself, suffice as a justification for discounting the opinion of the treating physician.” | 10 |
| 11 | Mildred Thomas v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “he determination of a claimant's rfc is matter for the alj alone - not a treating or examining doctor - to decide.” | 5 |
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.