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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 sentences2026“This does not require a showing that counsel’s actions ‘more likely than not altered the outcome,’ but the difference between Strickland’s prejudice standard and a more- probable-than-not standard is slight and matters ‘only in the rarest - 11 - case.’ ” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111-12 (2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 697 ). 2024Nonetheless, “the difference between Strickland’s prejudice standard and a more-probable-than-not standard is slight and matters ‘only in the rarest case.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ). | 3 | 6 |
Harrington v. Richtergreen2 sentences2026“This does not require a showing that counsel’s actions ‘more likely than not altered the outcome,’ but the difference between Strickland’s prejudice standard and a more- probable-than-not standard is slight and matters ‘only in the rarest - 11 - case.’ ” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111-12 (2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 697 ). 2024Nonetheless, “the difference between Strickland’s prejudice standard and a more-probable-than-not standard is slight and matters ‘only in the rarest case.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2026When reviewing a circuit court’s ruling on an ineffective assistance claim, we “defer[] to findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence” but “independently review[]” the ultimate conclusions of “deficiency and prejudice as mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Davis, 872 So. 2d 250, 253 (Fla. 2004) (citing Gore v. State, 846 So. 2d 461, 468 (Fla. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Gore v. Stategreen1 sentence2026When reviewing a circuit court’s ruling on an ineffective assistance claim, we “defer[] to findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence” but “independently review[]” the ultimate conclusions of “deficiency and prejudice as mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Davis, 872 So. 2d 250, 253 (Fla. 2004) (citing Gore v. State, 846 So. 2d 461, 468 (Fla. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.