Pitel v. Pitel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the appellant could not show prejudice from any deficiency in trial counsel's failure to introduce evidence that may have supported the appellant's defense, because the evidence was cumulative of other evidence that was presented to the jury
• concluding that the appellant could not show prejudice from any deficiency in trial counsel’s failure to introduce evidence that may have supported the appellant’s defense, because the evidence was cumulative of other evidence that was 14 presented to the jury
• \We have specifically declined thus far to decide whether Mallory applies in trials after January 2013.\ (citations omitted)
• “We have specifically declined thus far to decide whether Mallory applies in trials after January 2013.” (citations omitted)
• failure to admit no- contact order stemming from prior domestic incident not prejudicial because it was cumulative of other witness testimony
• “We have specifically declined thus far to decide whether Mallory applies in trials after January 2013.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).