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 5,182 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 | “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” | 2,063 |
| 2 | Williams v. Taylor | green | “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the supreme court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” | 1,675 |
| 3 | Williams v. Taylor | green | “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the supreme court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the supreme court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” | 1,444 |
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.