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 3 cases, quoted by 752 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 Harrington v. Richter.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Harrington v. Richter Anchor | green | “the likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable.” | 461 |
| 2 | 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.” | 194 |
| 3 | Bobby v. Dixon | green | “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” | 89 |
| 4 | Bobby v. Dixon | green | “a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court 'must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possib…” | 4 |
| 5 | Bobby v. Dixon | green | “must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” | 4 |
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.