Case law · Highest court · Federal

Bell v. Cone

Decided
May 28, 2002
Docket
01-400
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 4,309 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · State v. D. Schowengerdt

What later courts said

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

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing under principles announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984), should have controlled the state court’s analysis and granted him a conditional writ of habeas corpus. We hold that respondent’s claim was governed by Strickland, and that the state court’s decision neither was [*689] “contrary to,” nor involved “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).

I

Statutes cited

Cite this

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002)

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.