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 3 cases, quoted by 80 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 Virginia v. LeBlanc.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia v. LeBlanc Anchor | green | “in order for a state court's decision to be an unreasonable application of this court's case law, the ruling must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice” | 36 |
| 2 | Brumfield v. Cain | green | “as we have also observed, however, even in the context of federal habeas, deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review, and does not by definition preclude relief.” | 33 |
| 3 | Murden v. Artuz | green | “is 'adequate' if it 'is firmly established and regularly followed by the state in question' in the specific circumstances presented.” | 11 |
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.