Vidrine v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that unsupported speculation does not establish -4- J-S19014-22 the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness test
• stating that, to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must establish, inter alia, that \the underlying claim has arguable merit[.]\ (citation omitted)
• stating that “unsupported speculation” does not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different
• stating that “unsupported -8- J-S83035-18 speculation” does not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different
• stating that “unsupported speculation” does not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different
• holding PCRA petitioner establishes actual prejudice only by showing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error or omission, result of proceeding would have been different

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).