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.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 88 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 Wiese v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wiese v. Astrue Anchor | green | “if, after review, we find it possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the commissioner's findings, we must affirm the denial of benefits.” | 48 |
| 2 | Kevin Byes v. Michael J. Astrue | green | “substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the commissioner's conclusion.” | 13 |
| 3 | Baldeo K. Singh v. Kenneth S. Apfel | green | “if substantial evidence supports the commissioner's conclusions, this court does not reverse even if it would reach a different conclusion, or merely because substantial evidence also supports the contrary outcome.” | 12 |
| 4 | Phyllis Cox v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration | green | “the key issue is whether the commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” | 9 |
| 5 | Casey v. Astrue | green | “courts 'defer heavily to the findings and conclusions of the social security administration' and will disturb the commissioner's decision only if it falls outside the 'zone of choice.” | 6 |
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.