9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020Next, we conclude, contrary to the division below, that the proper test for prejudice in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a dependency and neglect proceeding is the test for prejudice set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984), and not a fundamental fairness test. 2020To the contrary, we perceive the Strickland standard as ultimately seeking to protect a 27 party’s right to a fair and reliable proceeding, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 684 , and this seems to be the focus of the fundamental fairness test as well. | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Chgreen2 sentences2020See A.N-B., ¶ 9, 440 P.3d at 1276 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 290. 2018Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 372 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 291; see People in Interest of A.G., 262 P.3d 646, 651 (Colo. 2011) (“We decline to decide whether Strickland applies to a claim of ineffective assistance in a termination hearing, but we acknowledge that if such a claim is cognizable, at the very least, an allegation of prejudice would be required.”). 1. | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Aggreen2 sentences2020People in Interest of A.G., 262 P.3d 646, 652 (Colo. 2011); see S.L., ¶ 65. ¶ 34 In reaching this conclusion, we decline to apply A.R.’s fundamental fairness test for establishing prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which is contrary to every other division that has addressed the Strickland prejudice prong in termination of parental rights cases. 2018Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 372 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 291; see People in Interest of A.G., 262 P.3d 646, 651 (Colo. 2011) (“We decline to decide whether Strickland applies to a claim of ineffective assistance in a termination hearing, but we acknowledge that if such a claim is cognizable, at the very least, an allegation of prejudice would be required.”). 1. | 2 | 2 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. B.R.green1 sentence2020Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 929 A.2d 1034, 1038 (N.J. 2007). ¶57 Fourth, we do not agree that the legal standards governing dependency and neglect proceedings are so discretionary that it would be problematic, if not impossible, to discern the impact of counsel’s deficient performance on the court’s exercise of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
of Hogsettgreen1 sentence2020I write separately to say that I also agree with Judge Furman that father’s assertion of prejudice from his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance fails the fundamental fairness test adopted in People in Interest of A.R., 2018 COA 176, ¶ 35 (cert. granted Mar. 4, 2019). | 1 | 1 |
People in the Interest of A.N-Bgreen1 sentence2020See A.N-B., ¶ 9, 440 P.3d at 1276 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 290. | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. Fretwellgreen2 sentences2018Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 372 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 291; see People in Interest of A.G., 262 P.3d 646, 651 (Colo. 2011) (“We decline to decide whether Strickland applies to a claim of ineffective assistance in a termination hearing, but we acknowledge that if such a claim is cognizable, at the very least, an allegation of prejudice would be required.”). 1. 2018See Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 372 . ¶ 61 A judgment terminating parental rights may be unreliable when, due to counsel’s deficient performance, the court did not receive essential information favorable to the parent that directly related to the termination criteria under section 19-3-604. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People in Interest of CB
green
2 sentences1981B., 196 Colo. 362 , 585 P.2d 281 (1978); and that the rule authorizing an adult defendant in a criminal proceeding to challenge for cause a prospective juror employed by a law enforcement agency is equally applicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings, People in the Interest of R. 1981B., 196 Colo. 362 , 585 P.2d 281 (1978); and that the rule authorizing an adult defendant in a criminal proceeding to challenge for cause a prospective juror employed by a law enforcement agency is equally applicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings, People in the Interest of R. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence2018Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753-54 . ¶ 48 Following Santosky, fundamental fairness has also been the benchmark by which our supreme court has measured the sufficiency of procedures afforded to parents in termination proceedings. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Widomski v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF BALTIMORE CTY.
green
2 sentences2003See Mathews v. Eldridge, supra; Widomski v. Chief of Police, 41 Md.App. 361 , 397 A.2d 222 (1979). 2003See Mathews v. Eldridge, supra; Widomski v. Chief of Police, 41 Md.App. 361 , 397 A.2d 222 (1979). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schall v. Martin
green
2 sentences1995The juvenile court relied upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Schall, 467 U.S. 253 , 104 S.Ct. 2403 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 , in concluding that the presumption statute on its face deprives F.N. and other juveniles of substantive due process of law. 1995The juvenile court relied upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Schall, 467 U.S. 253 , 104 S.Ct. 2403 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 , in concluding that the presumption statute on its face deprives F.N. and other juveniles of substantive due process of law. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Westendorf
green
2 sentences1978As pointed out in People v. Westendorf, 37 Colo. App. 111, 542 P.2d 1300 : “Although the legislature has the power to require which elements of an offense must be set forth in an indictment, the ultimate test of the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it is ‘sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecutions for the same offense.”’ The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment and discharge the defendant. 1 Professor Wright, 1978As pointed out in People v. Westendorf, 37 Colo. App. 111, 542 P.2d 1300 : “Although the legislature has the power to require which elements of an offense must be set forth in an indictment, the ultimate test of the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it is ‘sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecutions for the same offense.”’ The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment and discharge the defendant. 1 Professor Wright, | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.