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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 2,276 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 Knowles v. Mirzayance.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Knowles v. Mirzayance Anchor | green | “the question is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination under the strickland standard was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable - a substantially higher threshold.” | 627 |
| 2 | Padilla v. Kentucky | green | “surmounting strickland's high bar is never an easy task.” | 529 |
| 3 | Schriro v. Landrigan | green | “in deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” | 405 |
| 4 | Schriro v. Landrigan | green | “it follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” | 396 |
| 5 | Ward v. Hall | green | “a court need not address the performance prong if the petitioner cannot meet the prejudice prong, and vice-versa.” | 166 |
| 6 | Ward v. Hall | green | “iron-clad rule requiring a court to tackle one prong of the strickland test before the other.” | 153 |
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.