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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 1,986 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 Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division Anchor | green | “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” | 566 |
| 2 | Padilla v. Kentucky | green | “surmounting strickland's high bar is never an easy task.” | 468 |
| 3 | Schriro v. Landrigan | green | “in deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” | 252 |
| 4 | Ledford v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison | green | “the purpose of aedpa is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not as a means of error correction.” | 198 |
| 5 | Schriro v. Landrigan | green | “it follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” | 186 |
| 6 | Knowles v. Mirzayance | green | “the question is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination under the strickland standard was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable - a substantially higher threshold.” | 185 |
| 7 | Ward v. Hall | green | “a court need not address the performance prong if the petitioner cannot meet the prejudice prong, and vice-versa.” | 131 |
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.