green
Positive treatment
6.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Howard v. State
See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 706 , 759 A.2d 764, 794 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1115 , 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001) (“[T]he decision whether to grant a postponement is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (Citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moody v. State
See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 708-09 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000) (When we reverse an appellant’s conviction and appellant raises the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must address that issue because retrial is not permitted if the evidence is insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1115 , 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Ware v. State
See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1115 , 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001) (“Ware II”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wisneski v. State
In addition, the State suggests that “the trial court was not required to spell out the basis for its decision,” because “it was clear that the prosecutor ... made an honest mistake in neglecting to enter the stipulation into evidence,” and “the timing of the stipulation would in no way prejudice Wisneski.” To be sure, a trial court has broad discretion in allowing evidence out of order, and may permit the State to reopen its case in chief, “ ‘so long as [it] does not impair the ability of the defendant to answer and otherwise receive a fair trial.’ ” Collins v. State, 373 …
examined
Cited "see"
Miles v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 666 , 759 A.2d 764, 772 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1115 , 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001); Evans v. State, 333 Md. 660, 668 , 637 A.2d 117, 121 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 833 , 115 S.Ct. 109 , 130 L.Ed.2d 56 (1994); Couser v. State, 282 Md. 125, 138 , 383 A.2d 389, 396 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 852 , 99 S.Ct. 158 , 58 L.Ed.2d 156 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Young v. State
See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 672-73 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001) (citing Hopkins v. State, 352 Md. 146, 158 , 721 A.2d 231 (1998)); see also Robinson v. State, 348 Md. 104, 121 , 702 A.2d 741 (1997) (“The determination of whether specific evidence is relevant in a given case rests with the trial court, and that determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conyers v. State
(2×)
See also Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 692-93 , 759 A.2d 764, 786 (2000) (holding that appellant’s argument relating to the inad equacy of a jury instruction was waived where there had been “no timely objection” in the lower court), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1115 , 121 S.Ct 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001); Conyers II, 354 Md. at 148 , 729 A.2d at 918 (acknowledging that Md.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jones
Maryland Rule 8—131(a); See, e.g., Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 692 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 864 , 148 L.Ed.2d 776 (2001) (recognizing that appellant waived appellate review of jury instruction because appellant “never objected to the instruction”); Conyers, 354 Md. at 148 , 729 A.2d 910 (acknowledging that Maryland Rule 8-131(a) limits appellate review to those issues “ ‘raised in or decided by the trial court’ ”) (citation omitted); Walker v. State, 338 Md. 253, 262 , 658 A.2d 239 (declining to address appellant’s assertions of ineffective assi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pride
v.
Ward, Superintendent, Avon Park Correctional Institution
v.
Ward, Superintendent, Avon Park Correctional Institution
No. 00-7081.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 16, 2001.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.