Citation network
Premo Vs. Moore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 19, 2011
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Premo V. MooreSearch
-
facts led the state court to conclude Moore had not established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
was an unreasonable application of clearly established law in light of Strickland and was contrary to Arizona v. FulminanteSearch
-
opinion concurring in the judgment. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Premo v. MooreSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Premo V. MooreSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-658 Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner V. RandySearch
-
s opinion in Harrington v. RichterSearch
-
And, as in Richter , the relevant clearly established law derives from Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
made a difference. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Moore v. CzerniakSearch
-
see also Bell v. ConeSearch
-
think a motion to suppress would have failed, which is the relevant question under Strickland . See Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
role in determining whether there was manifest deficiency in light of information then available to counsel. Lockhart v. FretwellSearch
-
quick plea bargain. At the very least, the state court would not have been unreasonable to so conclude. Cf. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSearch
-
says nothing about the Strickland standard of effectiveness. See Bell v. ConeSearch
-
Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
was reasonable. Fulminante found that an improperly admitted confession was not harmless under Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
It is so ordered. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Premo v. MooreSearch
-
Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment. To prevail under the prejudice requirement of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner V. RandySearch
-
Moore v. CzerniakSearch
-
See Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
Cf. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSearch
-
See Bell v. ConeSearch
-
of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Bell v. ConeSearch
-
Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial