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.
9 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 53 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 Gregory Jean-Paul v. Timothy Douma.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gregory Jean-Paul v. Timothy Douma Anchor | green | “a state court's factual finding is unreasonable only if it ignores the clear and convincing weight of the evidence.” | 13 |
| 2 | Lavin v. Rednour | green | “the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” | 9 |
| 3 | White v. Wheeler | green | “a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” | 9 |
| 4 | Eric Blackmon v. Tarry Williams | green | “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” | 5 |
| 5 | Crockett v. Hulick | green | “a procedural default occurs where a habeas petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies without properly asserting his federal claim at each level of state court review.” | 4 |
| 6 | Jerry L. Vinyard v. United States | green | “a court's scrutiny of an attorney's performance is 'highly deferential' to eliminate as much as possible the distorting effects of hindsight, and it 'must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” | 4 |
| 7 | Keith Bland v. Marcus Hardy | green | “presented the contention to each level of the state judiciary.” | 3 |
| 8 | Gerald Kamlager v. William Pollard | green | “applies the wrong legal standard established by supreme court precedent or decides a case differently than the supreme court on materially indistinguishable facts.” | 3 |
| 9 | Mitchell v. Enloe | green | “strickland generally provides a presumption of strategic decision-making by counsel” | 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.