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.
5 canonical passages across 4 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 Winston v. Kelly.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Winston v. Kelly Anchor | green | “even if 'reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree' about the finding in question, 'on habeas review that does not suffice to supersede the trial court's . . . determination.” | 8 |
| 2 | Quincy Allen v. Michael Stephan | green | “habeas relief will not be granted unless the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict” | 8 |
| 3 | Freddie Owens v. Bryan Stirling | green | “aedpa and strickland thus provide 'dual and overlapping' lenses of deference, which we apply 'simultaneously rather than sequentially.” | 7 |
| 4 | Quincy Allen v. Michael Stephan | green | “a state court's decision is 'contrary to' clearly established federal law under 2254(d)(1) when it 'arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the supreme court on a question of law' or 'decides a case differently than the supreme court has on a set of materially indis…” | 7 |
| 5 | William Morva v. David Zook | green | “this double- deference standard effectively cabins our review to a determination of whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied strickland's deferential standard.” | 5 |
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.