Search for: "Strickland v. State"
Results 261 - 280
of 914
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2015, 1:02 pm
That was too onerous a burden under Strickland, and thus contrary to Strickland. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 10:36 am
Strickland, 344 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977; Brock v. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 10:36 am
Strickland, 344 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977; Brock v. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 9:15 am
Matthews v. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 6:46 am
State v. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 12:33 pm
Applying United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 4:56 am
The panel concluded that the Supreme Court of South Carolina did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:49 am
(Dee v. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 3:09 pm
Teague (1989) and People v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:51 am
In his petition for cert, petr attacks the standard set forth in Strickland v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 6:58 am
On appeal, the individual argued that the district court improperly deviated from the bright-line permissive use standard set forth in the Georgia Supreme Court’s 1968 Strickland v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 10:19 pm
See Hunter v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 6:13 am
We conclude that the Court of Appeals of Indiana unreasonably applied Strickland v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 6:16 pm
In Boyd v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 5:30 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Habeas Opinions Body: SC18530 - Ham v. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 6:40 am
Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, 446 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bellotti v. [read post]
7 Nov 2020, 8:09 am
" State v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 4:22 am
The opinion in United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 4:22 am
The opinion in United States v. [read post]
1 May 2011, 7:09 pm
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s opposite conclusion constituted an unreasonable application of federal law, as clearly established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland v. [read post]
