Sixth Circuit· 3/2/1992

Daniel Workman v. Arthur Tate, (Workman I)

Citations

957 F.2d 1339
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3538
1992 WL 39214

How courts have described this case

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

holding that defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present evidence that, although cumulative to some degree, “would have contradicted directly” negative testimony
noting that the case was not one where further investigation would be unlikely to bear fruit, which could excuse a lawyer’s failure to investigate
noting that an attorney could not be deficient “where the defendant gave counsel reason to believe that further investigation would be in vain”
determining that an inordinate delay in adjudicating state court claims may be a circumstance which would excuse the exhaustion of state court remedies
highlighting “the principle that federal courts should defer to state courts in the interest of comity assumes that the state courts will give prompt consideration to claims”
failure to procure testimony of witnesses who would have supported defendant's version of events created reasonable probability that outcome would have been different

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keith, Ryan, Timbers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.