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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13,570 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 Slack v. McDaniel.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Slack v. McDaniel Anchor | green | “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” | 6,161 |
| 2 | Slack v. McDaniel | green | “that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” | 3,657 |
| 3 | Miller-El v. Cockrell | green | “a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” | 2,161 |
| 4 | O'Sullivan v. Boerckel | green | “state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the state's established appellate review process.” | 1,591 |
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.