Supreme Court· 3/1/2016

Lockhart v. United States

Citations

577 U.S. 347
136 S. Ct. 958
194 L. Ed. 2d 48
2016 U.S. LEXIS 1611
136 U.S. 958
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 9
84 U.S.L.W. 4112

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a defendant can’t establish ineffective assistance if counsel decided “not to pursue suppression motions that would have likely been futile”
concluding that “of the United States” modified several preceding nouns in list, because “listed items are simple and parallel without unexpected internal modifiers or structure”
concluding that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” only modified “abusive sexual conduct” in the phrase “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward”
explaining that the rule of the last antecedent may “be overcome by other indicia of meaning”
explaining that the last antecedent principle is less persuasive when the modifier just as naturally applies to all elements of the list
noting that the ʺCourt has long acknowledged that structural or contextual evidence may rebut the last antecedent inferenceʺ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sotomayor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Other cases named Lockhart v. United States

42 other CourtListener records share this case 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.