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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 34 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Richard Nields v. Margaret Bradshaw, Warden.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Richard Nields v. Margaret Bradshaw, Warden Anchor | green | “the failure to present additional mitigating evidence that is merely cumulative of that already presented does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” | 12 |
| 2 | Lee v. State | green | “because the substantive claim underlying the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has no merit, counsel could not be ineffective for failing to raise this issue.” | 12 |
| 3 | Boyd v. State | green | “trial counsel is not ineffective for having an objection overruled or a motion denied.” | 6 |
| 4 | State v. Frogge | green | “continue looking for experts just because the one he has consulted gave an unfavorable opinion.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.