Margulies v. Margulies

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “there is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation,” and that “[c]ounsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent”
• explaining that “‘there is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation,’” and that “[c]ounsel is not obligated ‘to argue beyond existing precedent.’” (citations omitted)
• “[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.”
• “[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. . . . Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.”
• “[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.”
• “[T]here is no requirement for an attorney to prognosticate future law in order to render effective representation. Counsel is not obligated to argue beyond existing precedent.” (citations and punctuation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).