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 4 cases, quoted by 48 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 David Isaiah Garris v. Charles S. Lindsay, Administrator, Maximum Security Facility.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | David Isaiah Garris v. Charles S. Lindsay, Administrator, Maximum Security Facility Anchor | green | “it is the inefficacy of the remedy, not a personal inability to utilize it, that is determinative.” | 15 |
| 2 | United States v. Kenney | green | “section 2241 is not available for intervening changes in the sentencing law,” | 11 |
| 3 | Nezzy Adderly v. Donna Zickefoose | green | “2241 is not available for an intervening change in the sentencing laws.” | 11 |
| 4 | Roderick Pearson v. Warden Canaan USP | green | “2241 is not available for an intervening change in the sentencing laws.” | 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.