Etter v. Etter

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Florida Supreme Court reasonably applied Strickland by concluding that the petitioner suffered no prejudice when the mitigating evidence presented in the state post-conviction proceeding could open the door to additional damning evidence
• explaining that the existence of item-by-item analysis is not inconsistent with a cumulative analysis
• affirming the denial of habeas relief in a capital case because it is not “reasonably probable that a different outcome would have resulted if the government had disclosed” impeachment evidence
• affirming the denial of habeas relief in a capital case because it is not “reasonably probable that a different outcome would have resulted if the government had disclosed” impeachment evidence
• affirming the denial of habeas relief in a capital case because it is not “reasonably probable that a different outcome would have resulted if the government had disclosed” impeachment evidence
• “Our review of findings of fact by the state court is even more deferential than under a clearly erroneous standard of review.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).