7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 25 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 Williams v. Allen.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Williams v. Allen Anchor | green | “when examining a district court's denial of a 2254 habeas petition, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings of fact for clear error.” | 7 |
| 2 | DeYoung v. Schofield | green | “would have opened the door to harmful testimony which may well have eliminated any mitigating weight in the overall equation” | 4 |
| 3 | Martin E. Grossman v. James McDonough | green | “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review.” | 3 |
| 4 | Williams v. Allen | green | “by choosing to rely entirely on her account, trial counsel obtained an incomplete and misleading understanding of the defendant's life history.” | 3 |
| 5 | Armstrong v. Dugger | green | “the major requirement of the penalty phase of a trial is that the sentence be individualized by focusing on the particularized characteristics of the individual.” | 3 |
| 6 | Johnson v. State | green | “after reviewing the record, we agree that counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence was not deficient under the standards set forth in strickland.” | 3 |
| 7 | Armstrong v. Dugger | green | “the sentence be individualized by focusing on the particularized characteristics of the individual.” | 2 |
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.