Webster v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• pleading requirements satisfied, and the circuit court fundamentally misunderstood movant’s theory of the case and consequently the importance of the witness that his attorney should have called

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Barnett v. Roper
  Eighth Circuit· 2008-09-05· cited 47×
• State v. Kelley
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1997-07-17· cited 47×
• State v. Wright
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1996-10-08· cited 31×
• State v. Mills
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1994-03-24· cited 23×
• CHARLES LAUB, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2015-12-22· cited 10×
• Londagin v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2004-08-26· cited 2×
• David Barnett v. Don Roper
  Eighth Circuit· 2008-09-05
• Webster v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1994-02-08

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Richardson v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1986-09-30· cited 215×
• State v. Webster
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1983-08-23· cited 22×
• Lane v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1989-08-29· cited 19×
• Robinson v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1982-09-07· cited 18×
• State v. Hayes
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1990-01-23· cited 9×
• Webster v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1990-09-11· cited 5×