2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 13 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 Matthews v. Evatt.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Matthews v. Evatt Anchor | green | “to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his claim to the state's highest court.” | 10 |
| 2 | Humphries v. Ozmint | green | “an 'unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law,' because an incorrect application of federal law is not, in all instances, objectively unreasonable.” | 3 |
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.