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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 298 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board Anchor | green | “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” | 194 |
| 2 | Suramerica De Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States | green | “contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn.” | 36 |
| 3 | American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan | green | “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” | 22 |
| 4 | NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States | green | “its explanations do not have to be perfect.” | 17 |
| 5 | NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States | green | “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” | 15 |
| 6 | National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23 | green | “the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” | 7 |
| 7 | Sierra Club and William O'Neil v. John O. Marsh, Jr. | green | “look to see if the agency decision, in the context of the record, is too unreasonable (given its statutory and factual context) for the law to permit it to stand.” | 4 |
| 8 | Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency | green | “these are merely 'examples,' puerto rico sun oil co. v. united states e.p.a., 8 f.3d 73, 77 (1st cir. 1993); others could be recited as well.” | 3 |
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.