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.
8 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 98 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 Johnnie Hardman v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnnie Hardman v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr Anchor | green | “substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion' and constitutes 'more than a mere scintilla' but 'less than a preponderance' of evidence.” | 21 |
| 2 | Charles Johnson, Jr. v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cms | green | “may not reweigh the evidence . . . , nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute its judgment for the commissioner's, even if the evidence preponderates against the commissioner's decision.” | 20 |
| 3 | Arturo S. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo.” | 17 |
| 4 | Patsy Copeland v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr | green | “review of social security disability cases 'is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and (2) whether the commissioner applied the proper legal standard.” | 11 |
| 5 | Robin Cooley v. Hsing Auth of City of Slidell | green | “when parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, courts review 'each party's motion independently, viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” | 8 |
| 6 | Boyd v. Apfel | green | “a finding that a claimant is disabled . . . at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis.” | 7 |
| 7 | Lawrence E. Martin v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant | green | “conspicuous absence of credible choices” | 7 |
| 8 | Patricia GREENSPAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “reweigh the evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the commissioner.” | 7 |
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.