14 canonical passages across 12 cases, quoted by 271 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 Michael Beckem v. Indiana Family and Social Ser.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michael Beckem v. Indiana Family and Social Ser Anchor | green | “we have serious reservations about this decision, which strikes us as too sweeping. nonetheless, we may affirm on any basis that fairly appears in the record.” | 61 |
| 2 | Kidwell v. Eisenhauer | green | “did not properly allocate the burden of proof on the causation element between the parties,...no matter, because we may affirm on any basis that appears in the record.” | 41 |
| 3 | Angela Riley v. City of Kokomo, Indiana, Housi | green | “but we need not address either of those issues here because, even if were correct on both counts, we may affirm on any basis appearing in the record,....” | 40 |
| 4 | Donna Jarnutowski v. Kilolo Kijakazi | green | “. . . the commissioner argues, we should affirm the alj's decision because it was supported by the evidence. possibly. but we cannot reach that conclusion from the alj's analysis.” | 37 |
| 5 | Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security | green | “the substantial-evidence standard ... presupposes that there is a zone of choice within which the decisionmakers can go either way, without interference by the courts.” | 23 |
| 6 | United States v. Edwards | green | “we recall holmes's admonition to think things not words....” | 11 |
| 7 | Morgan Morales v. Martin O'Malley | green | “. . . aljs are 'subject to only the most minimal of articulation requirements"-an obligation that extends no further than grounding a decision in substantial evidence.” | 10 |
| 8 | Elder v. Astrue | green | “... it makes no difference if saw "every two-and-a-half months" ... what does matter is that did not confirm the severity of with medical examinations or tests.” | 8 |
| 9 | Patty Carradine v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security | green | “the issue in the case is not the existence of these various conditions of hers but their severity....” | 7 |
| 10 | Michelle Jeske v. Andrew M. Saul | green | “... arguments omitted before the district court are .” | 5 |
| 11 | Karrine Milhem v. Kilolo Kijakazi | green | “arguments not raised in the district court are waived.” | 5 |
| 12 | Chic Zoch v. Andrew Saul | green | “a claimant's assertions of pain, taken alone, are not conclusive of a disability.” | 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.