4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 14 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 Everett, Frank E. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Everett, Frank E. v. United States Anchor | green | “will prevail unless it is 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent' with the plain terms of the disputed regulations.” | 4 |
| 2 | Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey | green | “so long as the alternatives are reasonable and the agency discusses them in reasonable detail.” | 4 |
| 3 | Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater | green | “cause effects which are significantly different from those already studied.” | 3 |
| 4 | National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Blanck | green | “section 106 is universally interpreted as requiring agencies to consult and consider and not to engage in any particular preservation activities per se” | 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.