Hatten v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “[A] claim that trial counsel failed to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses was facially sufficient and must either be refuted by attachments or an evidentiary hearing held.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ford v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-08-22· cited 27×
• Schopper v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-06-01· cited 2×
• Lopez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-12-22· cited 1×
• Moye v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-12-29· cited 1×
• Robinson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-09-24
• NATHAN CURRY v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2022-02-16

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Maharaj v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1996-09-19· cited 81×
• Haliburton v. Singletary
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1997-01-09· cited 42×
• Edwards v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-04-13· cited 8×