Paulk v. Bunge Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that counsel's refusal to call a witness, that his client had instructed him to call did not violate defendant's right to compulsory process
• holding that counsel's refusal to call a witness that his client had instructed him to call did not violate defendant's right to compulsory process
• holding that counsel’s refusal to call a witness that his client had instructed him to call did not violate defendant’s right to compulsory process
• holding that counsel's refusal to call a witness that his client had instructed him to call did not violate defendant's right to compulsory process
• as early as 1818 ‘the advice and services of counsel were regarded as crucial to a criminal defendant’ in this state
• \It has been generally recognized that decisions concerning . . . such inherently personal rights of fundamental importance to the defendant as those referred to in Jones and Wainwright\ rest with the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).