Skip to main content

Jordan v. State

Citations

  • 883 S.W.2d 664
  • 1994 WL 147740

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that because affidavit was conclusory in nature and thus deficient, motion for new trial was not sufficient to put trial court on notice that reasonable grounds existed
  • holding that because affidavit was conclusory in nature and thus deficient, motion for new trial was not sufficient to put trial court on notice that reasonable grounds existed
  • finding that Jordan's motion did not show deficiency or prejudice, and therefore failed to give notice that reasonable grounds existed to entitle him to relief
  • finding that Jordan's motion did not show deficiency or prejudice, and therefore failed to give notice that reasonable grounds existed to entitle him to relief
  • holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying hearing on motion for new trial because defendant “failed to say why counsel’s investigation was deficient, or what further investigation would have revealed”
  • holding that conclusory affidavits that did not state “reasonable grounds” requiring hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baird, Meyers, McCormick, Clinton, Maloney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

253 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.