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.
9 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 579 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. Visciotti.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Woodford v. Visciotti Anchor | green | “demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” | 179 |
| 2 | Johnson v. Williams | green | “when a state court rejects a federal claim without expressly addressing that claim, a federal habeas court must presume that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.” | 145 |
| 3 | Nevada v. Jackson | green | “a federal habeas court may overturn a state court's application of federal law only if it is so erroneous that 'there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with the supreme court's precedents.” | 133 |
| 4 | William Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York and Eugene Le Fevre, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facility | green | “the nature or presentation of the claim must have been likely to alert the court to the claim's federal nature.” | 30 |
| 5 | Price v. Thurmer | green | “emphasized with rather unexpected vigor” | 25 |
| 6 | Lewis v. Connecticut Commissioner of Correction | green | “a state court decision is based on a clearly erroneous factual determination if the state court failed to weigh all of the relevant evidence before making its factual findings.” | 24 |
| 7 | Mark A. Campbell v. Judy P. Smith | green | “an 'unreasonable application of' federal law means 'objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even 'clear error' will not suffice.” | 20 |
| 8 | Robert Bintz v. Daniel Bertrand | green | “meaningful opportunity to consider the substance of the claim that he later presents in his federal challenge.” | 14 |
| 9 | Salvador Galdamez v. John P. Keane, Warden, Superintendent of State Correctional Facility | green | “comity concerns lie at the core of the exhaustion requirement.” | 9 |
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.