Daniel Workman v. Arthur Tate, (Workman I)

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).