Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bobby Vs. Van Hook

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 09, 2009

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

36 entries 4 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Strickland Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  2. Roe Vs. Flores-ortega US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2000
  3. Mcmann Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 04, 1970
  4. Rompilla Vs. Beard US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2005
  5. Bobby v. Van
    Search
  6. Hook - 09-144 (2009) Bobby v. Van
    Search
  7. Hook - 09-144 (2009) Per Curiam Bobby V. Van
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States David Bobby, Warden V. Robert
    Search
  9. first strangling him until he was unconscious, then killing him with a kitchen knife and mutilating his body. State v. Van
    Search
  10. State v. Van
    Search
  11. WL 11202 (Ohio App., May 13, 1987) (per curiam) , and we denied certiorari, Van Hook v. Ohio
    Search
  12. U. S. 1100 (1989). Van Hook also sought state postconviction relief, which the Ohio courts denied. State v. Van
    Search
  13. Hook filed this federal habeas petition in 1995. The District Court denied relief on all 17 of his claims. Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  14. s confession was unconstitutionally obtained under Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  15. U. S. 477 (1981). See Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  16. s other claims. See Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  17. F. 3d 411, 428 (2007). Van Hook petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which we denied. Van Hook v. Hudson
    Search
  18. and relied on a presentence investigation report without objecting to damaging evidence it contained. See Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  19. opinion, but rather than hearing the case a second time it remanded for the panel to revise its opinion. See Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  20. April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 do not apply. See Lindh v. Murphy
    Search
  21. U. S. 668 , 686 (1984) (quoting McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  22. F. 3d, at 526 (quoting Dickerson v. Bagley
    Search
  23. See Wiggins v. Smith
    Search
  24. F. 3d, at 528. Cf. Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  25. U. S., at 525, or would have been apparent from documents any reasonable attorney would have obtained, cf. Rompilla v. Beard
    Search
  26. submitted by the witnesses not interviewed shows their testimony would have added nothing of value. See State v. Van
    Search
  27. Per Curiam Bobby V. Van
    Search
  28. Van Hook v. Ohio
    Search
  29. Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  30. Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  31. See Van Hook v. Anderson
    Search
  32. Van Hook v. Hudson
    Search
  33. See Lindh v. Murphy
    Search
  34. Dickerson v. Bagley
    Search
  35. Cf. Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  36. See State v. Van
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial