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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 55 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 Todd Saxon v. Jacqueline Lashbrook.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Todd Saxon v. Jacqueline Lashbrook Anchor | green | “the applicable supreme court precedent regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is well established: 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea…” | 17 |
| 2 | Williams v. Thurmer | green | “a court's application of supreme court precedent is reasonable as long as it is 'minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.” | 7 |
| 3 | Fedell Caffey v. Kim Butler | green | “of the united states supreme court that existed at the time of the relevant state court adjudication on the merits.” | 7 |
| 4 | Gregory Jean-Paul v. Timothy Douma | green | “the state court's ruling must be 'so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” | 7 |
| 5 | Gregory Jean-Paul v. Timothy Douma | green | “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the supreme court of the united states,” | 7 |
| 6 | Donald Maier v. Judy Smith | green | “fourteenth amendment due process requires that the state must present sufficient evidence to prove each element of an alleged crime.” | 6 |
| 7 | Jimmie Miller v. Judy Smith | green | “even a clearly erroneous state court decision is not necessarily an unreasonable one.” | 4 |
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.