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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 415 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 Lorenzo Lopez, on Behalf of Roberta Lopez, Deceased v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lorenzo Lopez, on Behalf of Roberta Lopez, Deceased v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security Anchor | green | “reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute its own judgment for that of the commissioner.” | 78 |
| 2 | Hattie Dixon v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration | green | “must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion.” | 77 |
| 3 | Gerard C. Kepple, II v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security | green | “more than a mere scintilla of proof.” | 63 |
| 4 | Julian DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee | green | “must confront the evidence that does not support his conclusion and explain why it was rejected,” | 61 |
| 5 | Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Astrue | green | “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 61 |
| 6 | Kenneth CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure” | 59 |
| 7 | Kenneth CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee | green | “sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure us that the alj considered the important evidence ... and to enable us to trace the path of the alj's reasoning.” | 16 |
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.