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 12 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 Dugas v. Coplan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dugas v. Coplan Anchor | green | “but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” | 6 |
| 2 | Owens v. United States | green | “must show that 'counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,' and that 'the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.” | 4 |
| 3 | Cirilo-Munoz v. United States | green | “judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential,' and 'every effort should be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.” | 2 |
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.