Search for: "Strickland v. State"
Results 361 - 380
of 917
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2013, 4:10 am
If you’re wondering what the most-cited opinion in our system is, you may be bemused: With about 10,000 citations, it’s an opinion about ineffective assistance of legal counsel in death penalty cases, Strickland v. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 6:40 am
Instead, courts still decided Strickland claims pertaining to deportation advice on their merits even if they ended up denying them based on the collateral v. direct distinction. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
They recognized that the test for what's considered ineffective assistance of counsel is not new (Strickland v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 10:51 am
Caldwell v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:30 pm
Foster12-420Issue: Whether a federal habeas court must grant Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) deference to both components of a state court’s merits adjudication of a defendant’s Strickland v. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 1:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 2:00 am
Strickland v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 7:31 am
Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650 S.E.2d 465 (2007); not Degenhart v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 11:43 am
§ 2254(d) and Strickland v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 7:00 pm
§ 2254(d) and Strickland v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 1:24 pm
Duncan, Lafler and Frye: Strickland Revitalized? [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 7:02 am
This Monday this Texas Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Strickland v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 12:25 pm
Last Fall Steve posted about United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:47 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 8:25 am
Carl Folsom, III and Carol Longenecker Schmidt won in State v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 9:15 pm
The SEC also presented evidence that Strickland’s superiors at GE Capital stated that contacting shareholders was not part of the normal due diligence process, and that Strickland had never done so in the past. [read post]
