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 5 cases, quoted by 106 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 Kellough v. Heckler.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kellough v. Heckler Anchor | green | “dispositive factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed, even in cases where contrary findings of an alj might also be so supported.” | 31 |
| 2 | Mary Ruth Smith v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security | green | “must sustain the alj's decision, even if it disagrees with it, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence.” | 28 |
| 3 | James E. Marsh v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare | green | “fails in his duty to fully inquire into the issues necessary for adequate development of the record, and such failure is prejudicial to the claimant, the case should be remanded.” | 19 |
| 4 | Hawkins v. Chater | green | “when the claimant is represented by counsel at the administrative hearing, the alj should ordinarily be entitled to rely on the claimant's counsel to structure and present claimant's case in a way that the claimant's claims are adequately explored.” | 13 |
| 5 | James E. Marsh v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare | green | “where the alj fails in his duty to fully inquire into the issues necessary for adequate development of the record, and such failure is prejudicial to the claimant, the case should be remanded.” | 11 |
| 6 | Steurer v. Bowen | green | “in reviewing a denial of social security benefits, a court must determine whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the secretary's decision.” | 4 |
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.