Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In other words, “the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot be relied on having produced a just result.” Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 857-58 . 1987Sanders , at 857-58. | 2 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 . 2022“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 . | 1 | 19 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2022To show deficient performance, Balbirnie “must overcome the strong presumption [that] trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective,” Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018), by proving “‘that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” McNeal v. State, 500 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Taylor v. State, 382 S.W.3d 78, 80 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
David A. McNeal v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2022To show deficient performance, Balbirnie “must overcome the strong presumption [that] trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective,” Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018), by proving “‘that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” McNeal v. State, 500 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Taylor v. State, 382 S.W.3d 78, 80 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022To show deficient performance, Balbirnie “must overcome the strong presumption [that] trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective,” Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018), by proving “‘that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” McNeal v. State, 500 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Taylor v. State, 382 S.W.3d 78, 80 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evitts v. Lucey
green
2 sentences1985Evitts v. Lucey, [— U.S. -] 105 S.Ct. 830 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 821 ] (1985). ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . 1985Evitts v. Lucey, [— U.S. -] 105 S.Ct. 830 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 821 ] (1985). ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.