John A. Mandacina v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that counsel’s alleged failure to investigate the police report of an interview naming potential suspects was not a similar type of error as allegedly failing to discover exculpatory footprints during counsel’s investigation of the ease
• concluding that counsel’s alleged failure to investigate the police report of an interview naming potential suspects was not a similar type of error as allegedly failing to discover exculpatory footprints during counsel’s investigation of the case
• concluding that counsel’s alleged failure to investigate the police report of an interview naming potential suspects was not a similar type of error as allegedly failing to discover exculpatory footprints during counsel’s investigation of the case
• concluding that counsel’s alleged failure to investigate the police report of an interview naming potential suspects was not a similar type of error as allegedly failing to discover exculpatory footprints during counsel’s investigation of the case
• stating that “[t]he rationale of Rule 15(c
• stating that “[t]he rationale of Rule 15(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).