Topic: sufficiently specific to permit the reviewing court to conc… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #68

8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 1,321 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 Leonardo S. ORTEZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Leonardo S. ORTEZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee Anchor
ca9 · 1995
green “sufficiently specific to permit the reviewing court to conclude that the alj did not arbitrarily discredit the claimant's testimony.” 421
2 Betty J. DODRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
ca9 · 1993
green “state which . . . testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible.” 194
3 Beatriz v. Lounsburry v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security
ca9 · 2006
green “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 163
4 Tommasetti v. Astrue
ca9 · 2008
green “supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” 134
5 Karen Garrison v. Carolyn W. Colvin
ca9 · 2014
green “may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” 133
6 Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ca9 · 2002
green “supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court may not engage in second-guessing.” 117
7 Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ca9 · 2002
green “alj's credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court may not engage in second-guessing.” 99
8 Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ca9 · 2002
green “may not engage in second-guessing.” 60

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.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check