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.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 168 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 PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration Anchor | green | “if the agency's mistake did not affect the outcome, if it did not prejudice the petitioner, it would be senseless to vacate and remand for reconsideration.” | 46 |
| 2 | John F. Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force | green | “adjudication of these claims requires the district court to determine only whether the secretary's decision making process was deficient, not whether his decision was correct.” | 39 |
| 3 | Michael K. Frizelle v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation | green | “minimally contains a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” | 39 |
| 4 | Cone, George E. v. Caldera, Louis | green | “this deferential standard is calculated to ensure that the courts do not become a forum for appeals by every soldier dissatisfied with his or her ratings, a result that would destabilize military command and take the judiciary far afield of its area of competence.” | 33 |
| 5 | Indiana Municipal Power Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Intervenor | green | “once assured the agency has engaged in reasoned decisionmaking, it is not for the court to reweigh the conflicting evidence.” | 8 |
| 6 | Hill v. Geren | green | “inquiry focuses not on whether the army was 'substantively correct' ... but rather on whether the abcmr's explanations for that choice demonstrate that a defendant 'permissibly exercised its discretion and made a choice that is supported by at least substantial evidence.” | 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.