Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Williams, 126 A.3d 1162 (Md. 2015). · Go Syfert
Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Williams, 126 A.3d 1162 (Md. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“e conclude that, for purposes of determining whether laches bars an individual's ability to seek coram nobis relief, prejudice involves not only the state's ability to defend against the coram nobis petition, but also the state's ability to reprosecute.”
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson (wis, 2019-12-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson
Wis. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
e conclude that, for purposes of determining whether laches bars an individual's ability to seek coram nobis relief, prejudice involves not only the state's ability to defend against the coram nobis petition, but also the state's ability to reprosecute.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson
Wis. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
e conclude that, for purposes of determining whether laches bars an individual's ability to seek coram nobis relief, prejudice involves not only the state's ability to defend against the coram nobis petition, but also the state's ability to reprosecute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Attorney Grievance v. Cassilly
Md. · 2021 · confidence medium
“The doctrine of laches, which is both an affirmative defense and an equitable defense, applies where there is an unreasonable delay in the assertion of one party’s rights and that delay results in prejudice to the opposing party.” Jones v. State, 445 Md. 324, 329 , 126 A.3d 1162, 1165 (2015) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Attorney Grievance v. Cassilly
Md. · 2021 · confidence medium
“The doctrine of laches, which is both an affirmative defense and an equitable defense, applies where there is an unreasonable delay in the assertion of one party’s rights and that delay results in prejudice to the opposing party.” Jones v. State, 445 Md. 324, 329 , 126 A.3d 1162, 1165 (2015) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ademiluyi v. Md. State Bd. of Elections
Md. · 2018 · confidence medium
This Court has explained that "[t]he doctrine of laches, which is both an affirmative defense and an equitable defense, applies where there is an unreasonable delay in the assertion of one party's rights[,] and that delay results in prejudice to the opposing party." Jones , 445 Md. at 339 , 126 A.3d at 1171 (cleaned up).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Voters Organized for the Integrity of City Elections v. Baltimore City Elections Board (2×)
Md. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The doctrine of laches, which is both an affirmative defense and an equitable defense, applies where there is an unreasonable delay in the assertion of one party’s rights and that delay results in prejudice to the opposing party.” Jones v. State, 445 Md. 324, 339 , 126 A.3d 1162, 1171 (2015) (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Rich v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones, 445 Md. at 338 , 126 A.3d 1162 The circuit court did not address the question—it assumed, without deciding, that its “ruling.. .will have a collateral impact [on his] federal sentence,” then addressed the merits.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Alexander v. Government of the Virgin Islands
virginislands · 2026 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 126 A.3d 1162, 1173-74 (Md. 2015).
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
Garrett Vincent WILLIAMS
Misc. Docket AG No. 86.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Dec 3, 2015.
126 A.3d 1162
Lydia E. Lawless, Assistant Bar Counsel (Glen M. Gross-man, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner., No argument on behalf of Respondent.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM

ORDER.

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 3rd day December 2015,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Garrett Vincent Williams be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Garrett Vincent Williams from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16—761(b), for which sum judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Garrett Vincent Williams.