13 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 278 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 William Andrew Wright v. Stephen Spaulding.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | William Andrew Wright v. Stephen Spaulding Anchor | green | “a federal prisoner cannot bring a claim of actual innocence in a 2241 petition through the saving clause without showing that he had no prior reasonable opportunity to bring his argument for relief.” | 45 |
| 2 | Carlton Alexander v. Bureau of Prisons | green | “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” | 37 |
| 3 | Mark Hill v. Bart Masters | green | “(1) a case of statutory interpretation, (2) that is retroactive and could not have been invoked in the initial 2255 motion, and (3) that the misapplied sentence presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a miscarriage of justice or a fundamental defect.” | 34 |
| 4 | William Andrew Wright v. Stephen Spaulding | green | “he had no prior reasonable opportunity to bring his argument for relief,” | 23 |
| 5 | Copeland v. Hemingway | green | “only when a structural problem in 2255 forecloses even one round of effective collateral review...” | 22 |
| 6 | Robert Hayes v. J.C. Holland | green | “the savings clause of section 2255(e) does not apply to sentencing claims.” | 20 |
| 7 | Derrick Taylor v. Angela Owens | green | “section 2255 now serves as the primary means for a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction or sentence - those things that were ordered in the sentencing court.” | 18 |
| 8 | Ramon Hueso v. J.A. Barnhart | green | “in addition to whatever else our reasonable-opportunity standard demands, it requires a supreme court decision that adopts a new interpretation of a statute after the completion of the initial 2255 proceedings.” | 15 |
| 9 | Derrick Taylor v. Angela Owens | green | “grants federal courts the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners whose custody violates federal law,” | 15 |
| 10 | Mark Hill v. Bart Masters | green | “a subsequent, retroactive change in statutory interpretation by the supreme court” | 14 |
| 11 | James Charles, (98-5747), Movant (98-0539) v. Ernest v. Chandler, Warden | green | “section 2241 typically facilitates only challenges to 'the execution or manner in which the sentence is served' - those things occurring within the prison.” | 13 |
| 12 | Derrick Taylor v. Angela Owens | green | “unless the petitioner proves that a section 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to challenge his sentence, no court may entertain his application for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241.” | 13 |
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.