4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 79 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 Charles Kastner v. Michael Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Charles Kastner v. Michael Astrue Anchor | green | “if a decision 'lacks evidentiary support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful review,' a remand is required.” | 32 |
| 2 | Kenneth Scrogham v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “in addition to relying on substantial evidence, the alj must also explain his analysis of the evidence with enough detail and clarity to permit meaningful appellate review.” | 18 |
| 3 | Latesha Moon v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “does not mean that we scour the record for supportive evidence or rack our brains for reasons to uphold the alj's decision.” | 15 |
| 4 | Latesha Moon v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 14 |
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.