4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 43 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 Burton v. Stewart.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Burton v. Stewart Anchor | green | “burton neither sought nor received authorization from the court of appeals before filing his 2002 petition, a 'second or successive' petition challenging his custody, and so the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.” | 18 |
| 2 | Panetti v. Quarterman | green | “in the usual case, a petition filed second in time and not otherwise permitted by the terms of 2244 will not survive aedpa's 'second or successive' bar.” | 12 |
| 3 | Demetrius Osbourne v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections | green | “absent authorization from , the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition.” | 8 |
| 4 | Williams v. Chatman | green | “without such authorization, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the successive petition, and therefore could not issue a coa with respect to any of these claims.” | 5 |
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.