Skip to main content
S.D. Ohio· 8/4/1999

Henderson v. Collins

Citations

  • 101 F. Supp. 2d 866
  • 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21947
  • 1999 WL 1953224

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that “neither the Murnahan decision nor Ohio App. R. 14(B) set an outer limit or absolute deadline that would have alerted Petitioner to a certain deadline for filing a Murnahan Application pursuant to the rule [announced in Murnahan ].”
  • concluding that \neither the Murnahan decision nor Ohio App. R. 14(B) set an outer limit or absolute deadline that would have alerted Petitioner to a certain deadline for filing a Murnahan Application pursuant to the rule [announced in Murnahan ].\
  • concluding that “neither the Murnahan decision nor Ohio App. R. 14(B) set an outer limit or absolute deadline that would have alerted Petitioner to a certain deadline for filing a Murnahan Application pursuant to the rule [announced in Murnahan].”
  • denying the ineffectiveness claim because Henderson had failed to establish prejudice, i.e., that the underlying claims had merit
  • defendant who was represented by counsel and also sought to submit pro se brief upon appeal did not have right to such hybrid representation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spiegel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.