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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13 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 Mantooth v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mantooth v. State Anchor | green | “can provide no grounds for reversal unless it was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen it.” | 6 |
| 2 | Farris v. State | green | “that this strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in securing a defense verdict on all charges does not show that trial counsel's” | 4 |
| 3 | Paul v. State | green | “considering the overwhelming evidence" that defendant had committed the crime at issue, trial counsel acted reasonably in arguing "that the state could prove robbery, but not armed robbery” | 3 |
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.