green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.2 score
“although the strickland test was formulated in the context of evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the same test is used with respect to appellate counsel.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stuart v. Graham
although the strickland test was formulated in the context of evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the same test is used with respect to appellate counsel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Coleman v. Bell
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994); see also Claudio v. Scully, 982 F.2d 798, 803 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 912 ----- ------------ (1993) (“Although Strickland addressed the constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial counsel context, our Circuit has also adopted the Strickland two-prong test in assessing the effectiveness of appellate counsel.”) Importantly, an “[a]ppellate counsel does not have a duty to raise all colorable claims on appeal; rather, counsel should use reasonable discretio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Scism v. City of Schenectady
See Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1994) (“[W]e carve up the incident into segments and judge each on its own terms to see if the officer was reasonable at each stage.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994).8 With this background understanding, the Court must consider whether the undisputed facts, taken in light most favorable to Plaintiff, could support a jury’s verdict that Defendants violated Scism’s constitutional rights when: (1) they exited the parked van with their weapons drawn and commanded Scism to get on the ground without verbally announcing that they were po…
discussed
Cited "see"
Regis v. United States
(2×)
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must (1) overcome a “strong presumption” that his attorney’s conduct was reasonable and show that the representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms”; and (2) “affirmatively prove prejudice,” that is, show “a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-89, 693-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); accord, e.g., …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jennings
(2×)
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Abdullahi Ex Rel. Estate of Mohamed v. City of Madison
(2×)
See Frazell v. Flanigan, 102 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (“Consistent with the medical evidence . . . the jury could have determined that the officers had used force against [plaintiff] far more frequently than they were 7 See Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1147 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994): “The award of summary judgment to the defense in deadly force cases may be made only with particular care where the officer defendant is the only witness left alive to testify.
discussed
Cited "see"
Collier v. United States
(2×)
See id. (citing Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Victor H. Vroom
(2×)
See Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1788 (S.D.Tex.1992), aff'd as modified by, 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 82 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Franza v. Stinson
(2×)
Franza’s objection here boils down to his view that this section in counsel’s brief “was not worthy of inclusion.” (Coram Nobis Aff. ¶ 54; accord, Coram Nobis Br. at 57.) Even if that were true, inclusion of a weaker argument leads to a finding of ineffective assistance only if appellate counsel “omitted significant and obvious issues while pursuing issues that were clearly and significantly weaker.” Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); see also cases cited at page 13 above.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alcatel Usa, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dgi Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527, 538 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 82 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Steele v. Walter
(2×)
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lombardi
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fletcher v. Mann
(2×)
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ehinger v. Miller
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baker's Carpet Gallery, Inc. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.
See Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527, 540 (5th Cir.) (“A contract is a verbal act ... [and] has legal reality independent of the truth of any statement contained in it.”), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 82 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Calumet Lubricants Co., 47 F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir.1995) (“It is direct evidence, not hearsay, when a party to a dispute over a contract testifies to the offer or the acceptance made by the other contracting party.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lipton v. The Nature Company
Copyright Soc'y 63, 71-81 (1990))); see Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527, 538 (5th Cir.) (where district court found defendant liable for copyright infringement of computer program, it lacked the authority to generically enjoin the defendant from all future modifications of the program at issue), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 82 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lipton v. Nature Co.
Copyright Soc’y 63, 71-81 (1990))); see Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527, 538 (5th Cir.) (where district court found defendant liable for copyright infringement of computer program, it lacked the authority to generically enjoin the defendant from all future modifications of the program at issue), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 82 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Benn v. Stinson
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Theodore Abbott Jones v. Gary Stotts, Mike Nelson, and Attorney General of Kansas
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); cf. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375, 382-83 , 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2582, 2586-87 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (while petitioner may not raise Fourth Amendment claim on collateral attack if State has provided full and fair litigation of issue, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494-95 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052-53 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), he may raise it to support ineffective assistance of counsel claim). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
Barnett v. United States
See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rolling v. Fischer
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ray v. State
(2×)
Compare United States v. Legarda, 17 F.3d 496, 499 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994) (error in excluding defense evidence harmless where substance of excluded evidence was eventually allowed into evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ray, Bonnie Jalaane
Compare United States v. Legarda , 17 F.3d 496, 499 (1 st Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 820 (1994) (error in excluding defense evidence harmless where substance of excluded evidence was eventually allowed into evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence v. Artuz
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Avincola v. Stinson
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); Torres v. Irvin, 1998 WL 824527 at *22 ; Hurd v. Keane, 97 Civ. 2991, 1997 WL 582825 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Sept.19, 1997) (Scheindlin, D.J.); Ehinger v. Miller, 942 F.Supp. 925, 932 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (Mukasey, J. & Peck, M.J.); Benn v. Stinson, 917 F.Supp. 202 , *148 205 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Stein, J. & Peck, M.J.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frederick W. McKee Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Torres v. Irvin
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); Ehinger v. Miller, 942 F.Supp. 925, 932-33 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (Muka- *278 sey, D.J. & Peck, M.J.); Benn v. Stinson, 917 F.Supp. 202, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Stein, D.J. & Peck, M.J.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geraci v. Senkowski
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodriguez v. Hanslmaier
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); Ehinger v. Miller, 942 F.Supp. 925, 932-33 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Mukasey, J. & Peck, M.J.); Benn v. Stinson, 917 F.Supp. 202, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Stein, J. & Peck, M.J.). 3 Appellate counsel is not required to raise every colorable claim urged by the client, but is entitled to focus on key issues while “winnowing out weaker arguments.” E.g., Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-53 , 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3312-13 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983); Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d at 533 ; Ehinger…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramos v. Lujan
Lubanski v. Coleco Industries, Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Legarda, 17 F.3d 496, 498 (1st Cir.) (holding that an erroneous exclusion of evidence requires reversal only if it has a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the verdict), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramos v. Lujan
Lubanski v. Coleco Industries, Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Legarda, 17 F.3d 496, 498 (1st Cir.) (holding that an erroneous exclusion of evidence requires reversal only if it has a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the verdict), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronald Mason v. Craig A. Hanks
(2×)
See, e.g., Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 537 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994); Claudio v. Scully, 982 F.2d 798, 806 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 912 , 113 S.Ct. 2347 , 124 L.Ed.2d 256 (1993); Fagan v. Washington, 942 F.2d 1155, 1156 (7th Cir.1991); Barry v. Brower, 864 F.2d 294, 300-01 (3d Cir.1988); Matire v. Wainwright, 811 F.2d 1430, 1439 (11th Cir.1987); Grady v. Artuz, 931 F.Supp. 1048, 1053-54 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Laffosse v. Walters, 585 F.Supp. 1209, 1214 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Butler v. Butler
(2×)
See, e.g., Ithaca Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17 F.3d 684 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 83 , 130 L.Ed.2d 35 (1994). [10] In so noting, this Court does not intend to intimate in any manner, the validity or non-validity of such agreements, or more specifically, the buy/sell agreement, at issue here.
Leadership Software, Inc.
v.
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.
v.
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.
No. 93-2009.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1994.
Cited by 76 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.