Bryant Hoe Corp. v. Valentine

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming the denial of defendant’s § 2254 motion based on defaulted claims which were “vague, conclusory, or both.”
• “By failing to raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel before the Indiana Supreme Court, [petitioner] procedurally defaulted that claim.”
• the fact that “the jury acquitted Karr on Count 4 . . . supports the conclusion that [counsel’s] performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).