Search for: "Strickland v. United States" Results 281 - 300 of 498
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am by Amy Howe
United States, holding that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 7:11 am
Strickland Issue: Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district's population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 11:39 am by John Elwood
Texas, 18-9674Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 7:30 pm
The United States Supreme Court's grant ofcertiorari in Baze v. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 4:28 pm
The Michigan Supreme Court rejected Riley's claim, holding that Riley's counsel was not deficient within the meaning of Strickland v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 6:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Donald 14-618Issue: (1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:55 am
They provide a lot of insight into the workings over at the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 1:21 pm by John Elwood
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 5:23 pm
Revisiting precedent is particularly appropriate where, as here, a departure would not upset settled expectations, see, e.g., United States v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 12:43 pm by John Elwood
United States, 11-9711, Jackson v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 8:15 pm by Gideon
United States, 724 F.2d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Burdine v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 2:56 pm by John Elwood
Louisiana, 14-280 (third relist since the Court received the state’s brief in opposition); Tolliver v. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 9:51 am by Meg Martin
Summary of Decision issued January 19, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Baker v. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 12:43 pm by WSLL
Osborne states the issue for this Court’s consideration as follows:Was Shawn Osborne denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly investigate and secure expert testimony thereby violating the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the requirements of Strickland v. [read post]