Danny Harold Rolling v. James v. Crosby

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the attorneys reasonably believed at the time that a jury from the “medical community” where the case was set to be tried was more likely to consider favorably mitigating circumstance evidence of mental health problems
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that a state court’s credibility finding is a finding of fact
• stating that a state court’s credibility finding is a factual finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States v. Alvin Smith
  Eleventh Circuit· 2006-08-11· cited 139×
• Rolling v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2006-10-18· cited 29×
• Luther Jerome Williams v. Richard F. Allen
  Eleventh Circuit· 2006-08-02· cited 8×
• Stewart Parnell v. United States
  Eleventh Circuit· 2025-08-11

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Williams v. Taylor
  Supreme Court· 2000-04-18· cited 15,929×
• Eurus Kelly Waters v. Albert G. Thomas, Warden Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center
  Eleventh Circuit· 1995-04-04· cited 558×
• Maharaj v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
  Eleventh Circuit· 2005-12-15· cited 184×
• Rolling v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1997-03-20· cited 128×
• Clark v. Crosby
  Eleventh Circuit· 2003-07-02· cited 47×
• Rolling v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-06-27· cited 14×
• Rolling v. Florida
  Supreme Court· 1997-11-17· cited 3×