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 2 cases, quoted by 33 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 Jeffery Wansley v. MS Department of Corrections, e.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeffery Wansley v. MS Department of Corrections, e Anchor | green | “prisoners in the state have no liberty interest in parole” | 14 |
| 2 | Jeffery Wansley v. MS Department of Corrections, e | green | “based on any argument that state courts are incorrectly applying their own law is not a basis for federal habeas relief.” | 13 |
| 3 | Williams v. Taylor | green | “the proper interpretation of state law is not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings” | 6 |
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.