Legal Opinion
Bell v. Cone
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 28, 2002No. 01-400PublishedCited by 4,000 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
The Tennessee Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing under principles announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984), should have controlled the state court’s analysis and granted him a conditional writ of habeas corpus. We hold that respondent’s claim was governed by Strickland, and that the state court’s decision neither was *689“contrary to,” nor involved “an unreasonable application of,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Darden v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4,000 opinions
- Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Lockyer v. AndradeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Yarborough v. GentrySupreme Court of the United States · 2003
3,995 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.