green
Positive treatment
19.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Orduno-Ramirez
We therefore leave open whether the defendant must show prejudice or the government must show lack of prejudice.21 Because Mr. Orduno-Ramirez has not 21 As the district court pointed out in its January 2021 and December 2021 orders, the Supreme Court has not resolved “the issue of who bears the burden of persuasion for establishing prejudice or lack thereof when the Sixth Amendment violation involves the transmission of confidential defense strategy information.” ROA, Vol. I at 451; 645; 653 (quotations and citations omitted); see Cutillo v. Cinelli, 485 U.S. 1037 , 1037-38 (1988) (White, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Olea-Monarez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Redifer v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Aguilera v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Phommaseng v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Meinert v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shevlin v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lougee v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jordan v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Galvan-Campos v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Faulkner v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: CCA Recordings 2255 Litigation
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hollins v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Clark v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Tillman v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Chinchilla v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
McCambry v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Valdez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
McDaniel v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Love v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Rapp v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Blakney v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Haupt v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ramirez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Harssfell v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Phommaseng v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Warren v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Pavone v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Felix-Gamez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sneed v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Orundo-Ramirez v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Birdsong v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Murphy v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Roark v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurtado v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Phommaseng v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Krites v. United States
The Supreme Court has explained that this right has been accorded “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.”18 In general, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner has the burden of showing a reasonable probability of prejudice.19 In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the familiar two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel’s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced the defense.20 The prejudic…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: CCA Recordings 2255 Litigation
Shillinger v. Haworth In Shillinger, the prosecutor solicited information about the defendant’s pre-trial preparation sessions from a sheriff’s deputy who was present in the courtroom and used that information at trial to impeach the defendant and again in closing argument.27 The Tenth Circuit held that the prosecutor’s intentional intrusion into the attorney-client relationship constitutes a direct interference with the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant; absent a countervailing state 22 See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 , 554 n.4 (1979) (“One threat to the effective assistan…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hohn v. United States
Shillinger v. Haworth In Shillinger, the prosecutor solicited information about the defendant’s pre-trial preparation sessions from a sheriff’s deputy who was present in the courtroom and used that information at trial to impeach the defendant and again in closing argument.27 The Tenth Circuit held that the prosecutor’s intentional intrusion into the attorney-client relationship constitutes a direct interference with the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant; absent a countervailing state 22 See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 , 554 n.4 (1979) (“One threat to the effective assistan…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Robinson
See Cutillo v. Cinelli , 485 U.S. 1037 , 1037, 108 S.Ct. 1600 , 99 L.Ed.2d 915 (1988) (White, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J. and O'Connor, J., dissenting from denial of petition for writ of certiorari) (noting a three-way circuit split on the "issue of who bears the burden of persuasion for establishing prejudice or lack thereof when the Sixth Amendment violation involves the transmission of confidential defense strategy information"); People v. Alexander , 49 Cal.4th 846 , 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 , 913 n.23 (2010) ("We are aware of no decision by the high court in the intervening ye…
cited
Cited "see"
Ingram v. State
See Cutillo v. Cinelli, 485 U.S. 1037 , 1037-1038, 108 S.Ct. 1600, 1601 , 99 L.Ed.2d 915 (1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of petition for certiorari).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Quattlebaum
See Cutillo v. Cinelli, 485 U.S. 1037 , 108 S.Ct. 1600 , 99 L.Ed.2d 915 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kowalski v. Gagne
Underwriting Ass’n v. Norrington, 395 Mass. 751 , 481 N.E.2d 1364 , 1366 (1985); Niziolek, 481 N.E.2d at 1363 ; see also Cinelli v. Revere, 820 F.2d 474, 479 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1037 , 108 S.Ct. 1600 , 99 L.Ed.2d 915 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Linda Kowalski, A/K/A Linda Larochelle, Etc. v. Richard J. Gagne, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, in Intervention v. Richard Joseph Gagne and Linda Kowalski, A/K/A Linda Larochelle as the Administratrix of the Estate of Robert John Kowalski, in Intervention
Underwriting Ass'n v. Norrington, 395 Mass. 751 , 481 N.E.2d 1364, 1366 (1985); Niziolek, 481 N.E.2d at 1363 ; see also Cinelli v. Revere, 820 F.2d 474, 479 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1037 , 108 S.Ct. 1600 , 99 L.Ed.2d 915 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Oglesby
v.
Indiana
v.
Indiana
No. 87-6662.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 2, 1988.
485 U.S. 1037
Published
Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.