Turpin v. Bennett

How courts have described this case

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

• having affirmed the judgment in favor of the cross-appellant, the appellate court need not address the claims raised in the cross-appeal seeking the same relief
• counsel’s performance was deficient when counsel failed to request continuance to locate new expert wit- ness or take other remedial measures after defendant’s initial expert suffered from dementia episode while tes- tifying at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2012-04-25· cited 212×
• Britt v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2001-11-19· cited 30×
• Crawford v. Thompson
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2004-09-27· cited 9×
• Sacks v. Martin
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2008-11-17· cited 4×
• Pendergrass v. State
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2001-01-08
• Myers v. Commissioner of Correction
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-11

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Lockhart v. Fretwell
  Supreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 3,956×
• Willie Clisby, Cross-Appellant v. Charlie Jones, Warden, Holman Unit, Alabama Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellee
  Eleventh Circuit· 1992-05-04· cited 325×
• Goodwin v. Cruz-Padillo
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1995-06-29· cited 135×
• Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
  Supreme Court· 1992-11-02· cited 82×
• Jefferson v. Zant
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1993-06-28· cited 66×
• Turpin v. Lipham
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1998-11-23· cited 38×
• Bennett v. State
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1992-03-13· cited 32×
• Flanigan v. State
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1998-03-02· cited 20×
• Turpin v. Bennett
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1999-03-01· cited 17×
• Bennett v. Georgia
  Supreme Court· 1992-11-02· cited 3×