Roe v. Flores-Ortega
- Decided
- February 23, 2000
- Docket
- 98-1441
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,810 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Strickland test applies to claim that lawyer was ineffective for failing file a notice of appeal — Thompson v. United States (2007)
- holding that counsel's failure to file notice of appeal without defendant’s consent is not per se deficient — United States v. James Lavelle Gaither,defendant-Appellant (2001)
- ruling that Strickland provides the analytical framework where counsel fails to file notice of appeal — State Ex Rel. Seibert v. MacHt (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Gourt.
In this case we must decide the proper framework for evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, based on counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal without respondent’s consent.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.