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.
7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 sentences2023“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be 17 No. 56951-5-II 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2023“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be 17 No. 56951-5-II 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. A.N.J.
green
2 sentences2015To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must show that "( 1) his counsel' s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, ( 2) that counsel' s poor 6 No. 44759 -2 -II work prejudiced him." A. N.J., 168 Wn.2d at 109 . " 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 v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 686 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2015State v. A. N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91, 109 , 225 P. 3d 956 ( 2010). " 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ; 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 3 | 2014–2015 |
State v. ANJ
green
1 sentence2015State v. A. N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91, 109 , 225 P. 3d 956 ( 2010). " 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ; 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
green
1 sentence2015Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 686 , 104 S. Ct. 205 , 80 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.