Search for: "Smith v. Strickland"
Results 101 - 118
of 118
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
New Massachusetts companies. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 9:17 am
Check the Smith v. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 5:02 am
The always feisty Judge Meyers dissented to again express his belief that the second prong of Strickland should not apply to ineffective assistance claims at punishment. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 3:45 am
The facts in State v. [read post]
4 Jan 2009, 11:42 pm
The facet of the ENDA that focus of gender identity is much more controversial, but at least in Ohio, is largely unnecessary in light of Smith v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Dutil v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 11:19 am
In Hawkins v. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 8:29 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 10, 2008 US v. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 2:29 am
Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (incorporating the American Bar Association Guidelines For the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases as the professional standard of performance), and Rompilla v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 1:11 am
Strickland Northern District of Ohio at ClevelandSUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 30, 2008 US v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Smith, No. 06-3112 In a case addressing the constitutionality of a vehicle impoundment under the Fourth Amendment in circumstances in which there was no standardized policy regarding the impoundment and towing of vehicles, the circuit court rules that the constitutionality of a community caretaking impoundment is judged by directly applying the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. [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]
8 Jan 2007, 4:53 pm
Bypassing the deficient performance prong of the Strickland v. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 6:08 am
Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003): In highlighting counsel's duty to investigate, and in referring to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice as guides, we applied the same “clearly established” precedent of Strickland we apply today. [read post]
21 Oct 2006, 8:40 pm
Dretke & Smith v. [read post]
26 Jul 2006, 12:25 pm
Strickland, 185 Ga. [read post]
