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.
11 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 9,239 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 Slack v. McDaniel.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Slack v. McDaniel Anchor | green | “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” | 3,665 |
| 2 | Harrington v. Richter | green | “a state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision.” | 1,575 |
| 3 | Cullen v. Pinholster | green | “limited to the record that was before the state court.” | 1,164 |
| 4 | Schriro v. Landrigan | green | “the question under aedpa is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable-a substantially higher threshold.” | 718 |
| 5 | Harrington v. Richter | green | “the likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable.” | 689 |
| 6 | Early v. Packer | green | “so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” | 544 |
| 7 | Renico v. Lett | green | “aedpa thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” | 460 |
| 8 | Parker v. Matthews | green | “circuit precedent does not constitute 'clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court” | 173 |
| 9 | Woods v. Donald | green | “when reviewing state criminal convictions on collateral review, federal judges are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong.” | 141 |
| 10 | Robert R. Gordon v. Secretary, Dept. of Correction | green | “must show not only that one or more of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” | 59 |
| 11 | Robert R. Gordon v. Secretary, Dept. of Correction | green | “a 'substantial question' about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable among jurists of reason.” | 51 |
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.