4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 256 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 Paterek v. Secretary of Health & Human Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Paterek v. Secretary of Health & Human Services Anchor | green | “inding certain information not relevant does not lead to-and likely undermines-the conclusion that it was not considered” | 92 |
| 2 | Moriarty v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “e generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision” | 61 |
| 3 | Moriarty v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “we generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision.” | 59 |
| 4 | Paterek v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “finding certain information not relevant does not lead to-and likely undermines-the conclusion that it was not considered.” | 44 |
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.