Poteet v. Cockrell, Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Institutional Div., 535 U.S. 1074 (2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Poteet v. Cockrell, Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Institutional Div., 535 U.S. 1074 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“an 'actual conflict,' for sixth amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance.”
65 citation events (65 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Carver (kanctapp, 2004-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Carver
Kan. Ct. App. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
an 'actual conflict,' for sixth amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance.
cited Cited "see" State v. Moyer
Kan. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mickens v. Taylor , 535 U.S. 162 , 173-74, 122 S.Ct. 1237 , 152 L.Ed.2d 291 , reh. denied 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1954 , 152 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002) ; Cheatham , 296 Kan. at 430-31 , 292 P.3d 318 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Richard Thomas Stitt, A/K/A Patrick v. Hardy, A/K/A Tom Tom, United States of America v. Richard Thomas Stitt, A/K/A Patrick v. Hardy, A/K/A Tom Tom
4th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 900 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002). 3 Stitt then sought habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Stitt
4th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 900 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002).
discussed Cited "see" Nwanze v. Time, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nwanze v. Philip Morris, Inc., 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1955 , 152 L.Ed.2d 857 (2002); Nwanze v. Philip Morris, Inc., 534 U.S. 962 , 122 S.Ct. 369 , 151 L.Ed.2d 280 (2001); Nwanze v. United States, 516 U.S. 1064 , 116 S.Ct. 747 , 133 L.Ed.2d 695 (1996); Nwanze v. Jones, 516 U.S. 835 , 116 S.Ct. 112 , 133 L.Ed.2d 64 (1995); Nwanze v. Morchower, Luxton & Whaley, 516 U.S. 852 , 116 S.Ct. 150 , 133 L.Ed.2d 95 (1995); Nwanze v. Woody, 515 U.S. 1135 , 115 S.Ct. 2565 , 132 L.Ed.2d 817 (1995); Nwanze v. United States, 510 U.S. 926 , 114 S.Ct. 332 , 126 L.Ed.2d 277 (1993).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jacobs
4th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 900 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002).
discussed Cited "see" Kinney v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1954 , 152 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002) (holding that in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation, a petitioner must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel’s performance).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Evans v. State (2×)
Md. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oken v. State, 367 Md. 191, 195 , 786 A.2d 691, 693 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002), where the Court decided the merits of a similar challenge by the defendant Oken." Id. at 279-280, 855 A.2d at 309 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Baker v. State
Md. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oken v. State, 367 Md. 191, 195 , 786 A.2d 691, 693 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002), where the Court decided the merits of a similar challenge by the defendant Oken.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Evans v. State
Md. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oken v. State, 367 Md. 191, 195 , 786 A.2d 691, 693 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1074 , 122 S.Ct. 1953 , 152 L.Ed.2d 855 (2002), where the Court decided the merits of a similar challenge by the defendant Oken.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Poteet
v.
Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
01-6341.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
535 U.S. 1074
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Kansas (1)

535 U.S. 1074

POTEET
v.
COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION.

No. 01-6341.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 13, 2002.

1

534 U. S. 1028. Petitions for rehearing denied.