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 4 cases, quoted by 490 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 Moran v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Moran v. Astrue Anchor | green | “it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 155 |
| 2 | Edwind F. PRATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee | green | “it is not our function to determine de novo whether a plaintiff is disabled.” | 98 |
| 3 | Cora Mae WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.” | 95 |
| 4 | Moran v. Astrue | green | “we conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the commissioner's decision and if the correct legal standards have been applied.” | 88 |
| 5 | Burgess v. Astrue | green | “the opinion of a claimant's treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given 'controlling weight' so long as it 'is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial …” | 51 |
| 6 | Cora Mae WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.” | 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.