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 90 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 Sebelius v. Cloer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sebelius v. Cloer Anchor | green | “proceeds from the understanding that 'unless otherwise defined, statutory terms are generally interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” | 53 |
| 2 | Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr | green | “clear and convincing evidence of congressional intent to preclude judicial review” | 21 |
| 3 | Iddir v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “only bars review of actual discretionary decisions to grant or deny relief,” | 8 |
| 4 | Saleem v. Keisler | green | “no matter how narrowly a court defines 'action,' it would require an orwellian twisting of the word to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate.” | 4 |
| 5 | Liu v. Novak | green | “action and inaction are distinct.” | 4 |
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.