5 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 71 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 Lawrence Coleman v. Marcus Hardy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lawrence Coleman v. Marcus Hardy Anchor | green | “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the supreme court of the united states” | 23 |
| 2 | Lawrence Coleman v. Marcus Hardy | green | “identifies the correct governing legal rule from supreme court cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case.” | 21 |
| 3 | Frederick G. Jackson v. Matthew J. Frank, 1 | green | “something like lying well outside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.” | 19 |
| 4 | Frederick G. Jackson v. Matthew J. Frank, 1 | green | “this is a difficult standard to meet; 'unreasonable' means 'something like lying well outside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.” | 6 |
| 5 | Frederick G. Jackson v. Matthew J. Frank, 1 | green | “boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.” | 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.