8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 54 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 Bell v. Cone.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bell v. Cone Anchor | green | “federal courts are not free to presume that a state court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation.” | 11 |
| 2 | Bell v. Cone | green | “ederal courts are not free to presume that a state court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation.” | 10 |
| 3 | Mitchell v. Esparza | green | “state court need not even be aware of our precedents, 'so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” | 9 |
| 4 | Harris v. Alabama | green | “he constitution does not require a state to ascribe any specific weight to particular factors, either in aggravation or mitigation, to be considered by the sentencer.” | 7 |
| 5 | Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jill Brown, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin | green | “f it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is virtually automatic.” | 5 |
| 6 | State v. Newell | green | “we do not require that a nexus between the mitigating factors and the crime be established before we consider the mitigation evidence. but the failure to establish such a causal connection may be considered in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” | 5 |
| 7 | Robert Henry Moormann v. Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections | green | “this court may not engage in speculation as to whether the trial court actually considered all the mitigating evidence; we must rely on its statement that it did so.” | 4 |
| 8 | Schad v. Schriro | green | “espite petitioner's argument that the evidence could lead to contradictory inferences, it is difficult to ascribe a motivation other than pecuniary gain to the offense against mr. grove, who was a complete stranger to petitioner.” | 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.