Search for: "U.S. v. Strickland"
Results 441 - 460
of 562
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2009, 5:21 pm
Clark v. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 12:55 pm
Strickland, 321 N.C. 31, 39, 361 S.E.2d 882, 886–87 (1987) (prior assaults); Morgan, 315 N.C. at 635, 340 S.E.2d at 90 (same); but see State v. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 7:02 am
Texas, 18-9674 Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. [read post]
27 May 2020, 8:29 am
Texas, 18-9674Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 5:25 pm
Texas, which were amply supported by the habeas and trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to Strickland v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 30, 2008 US v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 7:57 am
(The full opinion in Maples v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 7:06 am
(The full opinion in Maples v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 9:00 am
Supreme Court decision of Strickland v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am
This case involves a U.S. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 7:09 am
The U.S. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 7:52 am
Avery Issue: Whether the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the grant of a habeas petition, abrogated the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 12:44 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
3 Dec 2007, 8:35 am
"Writing in the 1958 case of Trop v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 8:38 am
Texas, 18-9674Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:22 am
The U.S. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 27, 2008 US v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 7:19 am
Strickland v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 7:30 am
Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975), and Pierson v. [read post]
