Search for: "Teague v. Teague"
Results 221 - 240
of 323
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2011, 6:48 am
See Teague v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:42 pm
"[T]rial counsel's duty of effective assistance includes the responsibility to advise the defendant concerning the exercise of [the] constitutional right" to testify at trial (Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73, 74, cert denied 522 US 1128; see People v Carpenter, 52 AD3d 729, lv denied 11 NY3d 830; People v Perry, 266 AD2d 151, 152, lv denied 95 NY2d 856). [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 11:50 am
Then I read Teague v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 11:27 am
Aug. 25, 2010) (holding that Padilla did not create a new rule under Teague and was therefore retroactively applicable); United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 9:46 am
Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, in 1987 and for collateral review in Teague v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 2:20 pm
That act paralleled an effort in the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of habeas rights — most significantly, in the 1989 case of Teague v. [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 6:37 am
Immediately after enactment, the "experts" quickly reached a consensus that it didn't really change much but had just codified the pre-existing case law of Teague v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 2:21 pm
Lochhart, 65 F.3d 676, 685 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Teague v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 3:04 pm
See Teague v. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 6:19 am
Teague, 862 So.2d 371 (La. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 6:26 am
Teague, 862 So.2d 371 (La. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 8:20 am
It has been my understanding that under the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Teague v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 12:26 pm
Thompson v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 9:37 am
In doing so, the court noted in passing that Padilla would most likely not apply retroactively, relying on Teague v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:05 pm
Resp., citing Teague v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 9:41 am
Rhoades v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 1:05 pm
Shouldn't both the limitation on applying new rules of Teague v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 2:11 pm
An initial review of Justice O’Connor’s seminal decision in Teague v. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 9:15 pm
LEXIS 52 (Ida 3/17/2010) Adopting the SCOTUS’s holding in Teague to “conclude that Ring is not retroactive under Idaho law. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 5:52 pm
The holdings of Schriro, Ring, and Teague v. [read post]
