State v. Ware, 819 A.2d 1030 (Md. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Ware, 819 A.2d 1030 (Md. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
191 citation events (191 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Shirley B., 18 A.3d 40 (Md. 2011)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
819 A.2d at 1038 Protecting parental liberty interest under due process5 citing casesCertain fundamental rights are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and among those rights are a parent's 14th Amendment liberty interest in raising his or her children as he or she sees fit, without undue interference by the State.1 citing court put it this way · 4 listed here
  • John A. Ex Rel. A.A. v. Bd. of Educ., 929 A.2d 136 (Md. 2007).published
    (Certain fundamental rights are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and among those rights are a parent's 14th Amendment liberty interest in raising his or her children as he or she sees fit, without undue interferen…)
  • Hall v. State, 139 A.3d 936 (Md. 2016).published 2 cites
    (discussing the fundamental rights of a parent in relation to their child)
  • State v. Katianne S., 740 N.W.2d 13 (Neb. 2007).published
    In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038 (2003).
  • Koshko v. Haining, 921 A.2d 171 (Md. 2007).published 4 cites
    In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282, 300 , 869 A.2d 370, 380 (2005) (stating that “(a] parent’s interest in raising a child is, no doubt, a fundamental right, recognized by the United States Supreme Court and this Court,” and cataloguing cases);…
819 A.2d at 1051 Denying leave to appeal and deferring appeal consideration4 citing cases
  • In Re Shirley B., 18 A.3d 40 (Md. 2011).published 3 cites
    See Yve S., 373 Md. at 587 , 819 A.2d at 1052 (“The burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Section] 9…
  • In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B., 9 A.3d 14 (Md. 2010).published 3 cites
    See Yve S., 373 Md. at 587 , 819 A.2d at 1052 (“The burden is *158 on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Secti…
  • In Re: R.S., 235 A.3d 914 (Md. 2020).published
    Yve S., 373 Md. at 586 , 819 A.2d at 1051 (internal citations omitted).
  • Burak v. Burak, 168 A.3d 883 (Md. 2017).published 6 cites
    Id. at 586 , 819 A.2d at 1051 (citations omitted).
819 A.2d at 1046 Placing children for adoption or guardianship4 citing casesadditions in original4 citing courts put it this way
  • In Re Karl H., 906 A.2d 898 (Md. 2006).published 2 cites
    (additions in original)
  • In Re Ashley E., 874 A.2d 998 (Md. 2005).published 4 cites
    Permanency Plans in CINA Proceedings In response to concerns that children were being lost in the foster care system without belonging to a permanent family, Congress enacted Public Law 96-272, the “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Ac…
  • In Re Billy W., 874 A.2d 423 (Md. 2005).published 2 cites
    (additions in original)
  • In Re Samone H., 869 A.2d 370 (Md. 2005).published 3 cites
    (additions in original)
819 A.2d at 1048 Denying leave to appeal in capital case4 citing casesadditions in original4 citing courts put it this way
  • In Re Karl H., 906 A.2d 898 (Md. 2006).published 2 cites
    Id. at 577-81, 819 A.2d at 1046-48 (additions in original).
  • In Re Ashley E., 874 A.2d 998 (Md. 2005).published 4 cites
    Permanency Plans in CINA Proceedings In response to concerns that children were being lost in the foster care system without belonging to a permanent family, Congress enacted Public Law 96-272, the “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Ac…
  • In Re Billy W., 874 A.2d 423 (Md. 2005).published 2 cites
    Id. at 577-81, 819 A.2d at 1046-48 (additions in original).
  • In Re Samone H., 869 A.2d 370 (Md. 2005).published 3 cites
    Id. at 577-81, 819 A.2d at 1046-48 (additions in original).
819 A.2d at 1049 Revisiting permanency goals in child welfare hearings3 citing casesobserving that “the goal of the permanency plan is re-visited periodically at hearings to determine progress and whether, due to historical and contemporary circumstances, that goal should be changed1 citing court put it this way
  • In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B., 9 A.3d 14 (Md. 2010).published 3 cites
    See Yve S., 373 Md. at 587 , 819 A.2d at 1052 (“The burden is *158 on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Secti…
  • Dept of H&W v. Does I, No. 45020 (Idaho Apr. 24, 2018).published
    See In re Ashley S., 66 A.3d 1022, 1037 (Md. 2013); In re Yve S., 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (Md. 2003); In re Care and Protection of Lloyd, No. 01-P-900, 2002 WL 21725 , at *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). 1 We agree with these states that the abuse of…
  • In Re Ashley E., 874 A.2d 998 (Md. 2005).published 4 cites
    Permanency Plans in CINA Proceedings In response to concerns that children were being lost in the foster care system without belonging to a permanent family, Congress enacted Public Law 96-272, the “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Ac…
819 A.2d at 1052 The burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Section] 9-101(b).2 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
  • In Re Shirley B., 18 A.3d 40 (Md. 2011).published 3 cites
    (The burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Section] 9-101(b).)
  • In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B., 9 A.3d 14 (Md. 2010).published 3 cites
    (The burden is *158 on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Section] 9-101(b).)
819 A.2d at 1043 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • In re: T.K., 279 A.3d 1010 (Md. 2022).published
    In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 572 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1043 (2003); In re Billy W., 386 Md. at 685 , 874 A.2d at 429 (“[T]he General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme to ascertain whether a child is in need of assistance due t…
  • In Re Blessen H., 898 A.2d 980 (Md. 2006).published 2 cites
    Id. at 573-76, 819 A.2d at 1043-45 (emphasis added); see also In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos.
819 A.2d at 1068 discussing the parameters this Court has established for finding harmless error2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Roy v. Dackman, 124 A.3d 169 (Md. 2015).published 2 cites
    In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 615-16 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1068 (2003).
  • Hall v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 919 A.2d 1177 (Md. 2007).published
    (discussing the parameters this Court has established for finding harmless error)
819 A.2d at 1039 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • In Re Maria P., 904 A.2d 432 (Md. 2006).published 3 cites
    In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 566-58 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039-40 (2003)(quoting In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705 , 782 A.2d 332, 342-43 (2001)).
  • In Re Billy W., 875 A.2d 734 (Md. 2005).published 2 cites
    In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 566-67 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039 (2003); In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705-06 , 782 A.2d 332, 343 (2001).
819 A.2d at 1042 Presumption favoring maintaining parental rights in child welfare3 citing casesstating that “[t]he best interests of the child standard embraces a strong presumption that the child’s best interests are served by maintaining parental rights1 citing court put it this way · 2 listed here
  • In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Victor A., 872 A.2d 662 (Md. 2005).published 3 cites
    Id. at 571, 819 A.2d at 1042 (internal citations omitted).
  • In Re Najasha B., 972 A.2d 845 (Md. 2009).published
    (stating that “[t]he best interests of the child standard embraces a strong presumption that the child’s best interests are served by maintaining parental rights)
819 A.2d at 1055 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In re Ashley S., 66 A.3d 1022 (Md. 2013).published
    See In re: Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr., 412 Md. 442, 464 , 987 A.2d 536, 549 (2010); In re: Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 594 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1055 (2003) (quoting In re: Barry E., 107 Md.App. 206, 220 , 667 A.2d 931, 938 (1995)).
819 A.2d at 1041 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In Re: Adoption/guardianship of Rashawn H., 937 A.2d 177 (Md. 2007).published 2 cites
    See In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705-06 , 782 A.2d 332, 342-43 (2001); In re Yve S, 373 Md. 551, 570-71 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1041-42 (2003); In re Billy W., 386 Md. 675, 684 , 874 A.2d 423, 429 (2005) ("the best interests of the child may take…
819 A.2d at 1044 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In Re Ashley E., 874 A.2d 998 (Md. 2005).published 4 cites
    Permanency Plans in CINA Proceedings In response to concerns that children were being lost in the foster care system without belonging to a permanent family, Congress enacted Public Law 96-272, the “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Ac…
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
STATE of Maryland
v.
Darris Alaric WARE
50 Sept. Term 2001.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Aug 22, 2002.
Published opinion
819 A.2d 1030
Annabelle L. Lise, Assistant Attorney General and J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, for Appellant., Fred Warren Bennett of Bennett & Nathans, LLP, Greenbelt, and Arcangelo M. Tuminelli, Baltimore, for Appellee.
Submitted Before Bell.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: Court of Special Appeals of Ma… (1)

ORDER

The Court having considered the State’s application for leave to appeal from the grant of post conviction relief in a capital case, Darris Ware’s application for leave to appeal, and the answers filed thereto, in the above-entitled case, it is this 22nd day of August, 2002,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that both applications be, and they are hereby, DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, that, as to the belated appeal ordered by the Circuit Court on the single issue of whether Darris Ware had received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, consideration of that appeal is deferred pending the new sentencing[*551] proceeding, and the belated appeal will be considered with the appeal, if any, from the decision in the sentencing hearing.