Mohammed Chowdhury v. Lavoi Corporation D/B/A Epi Breads

How courts have described this case

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

• holding ineffective assistance claim premised on failure to assert an Atkins claim failed where there was no evidence showing Busby’s trial counsel acted unreasonably in relying upon the opinion of the defense’s mental health expert that Busby was not intellectually disabled
• “More recently, the Supreme Court emphasized that AEDPA demands deference to state court dispositions of Atkins claims”
• the Supreme Court’s decisions addressing intellectual disability claims in Moore and Hall did not become “clearly established federal law” until their respective dates of issuance
• first quoting Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945, 955–56, 130 S. Ct. 3259, 3266 (2010) (per curiam), and then Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537, 123 S. Ct. 2527, 2543 (2003)
• “Incompetence may occur at various points after conviction, and it may recede and later reoccur. A finding that an inmate is incompetent to be executed does not foreclose the possibility that she may become competent in the future and would no longer be (continued . . .

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).