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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 35 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 Woodford v. Garceau.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Woodford v. Garceau Anchor | green | “to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences ... and to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism.” | 15 |
| 2 | Ronald Rompilla v. Martin Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Martin Horn, Appellant/cross-Appellee | green | “decision finally resolves the parties' claims, with res judicata effect, and is based on the substance of the claim advanced, rather than on a procedural, or other ground.” | 13 |
| 3 | Holloway v. Horn | green | “fair presentation' of a claim means that the petitioner 'must present a federal claim's factual and legal substance to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted.” | 7 |
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.