In re 2012 Legislative Districting of the State, 55 A.3d 713 (Md. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
In re 2012 Legislative Districting of the State, 55 A.3d 713 (Md. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Lila F. (tennctapp, 2024-04-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Lila F.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 135 (1st Cir. 1985); Washington v. Sherwin Real Est., Inc., 694 F.2d 1081 , 1087 (7th Cir. 1982); Devincenzi v. Wright, 882 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Alaska 1994); Azmat as Next Friend of Azmat v. Bauer, 588 S.W.3d 441 , 446 (Ky. 2018); In re Franke, 55 A.3d 713, 71920 (Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary Lee Odom v. Rachel Lea Zamata Odom
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 135 (1st Cir. 1985); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982); Devincenzi v. Wright, 882 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Alaska 1994); In re Franke, 55 A.3d 713, 720 (Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Banks v. University Of Tennessee
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 135 (1st Cir. 1985); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982); Devincenzi v. Wright, 882 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Alaska 1994); In re Franke, 55 A.3d 713, 720 (Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Jamie B.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
The grant or denial of a request to withdraw as counsel is a matter addressed to the court’s discretion.4 Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 135 (1st Cir. 1985); Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982); Devincenzi v. Wright, 882 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Alaska 1994); In re Franke, 55 A.3d 713, 720 (Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cianci v. Chaput
virginislands · 2016 · confidence medium
App. 679 , 55 A.3d 713, 724 (2012) (rejecting trial court’s denial of attorney’s motion to withdraw, stating that the client “must bear the consequences of his failure to pay existing attorney fees and his acknowledged inability to pay those likely to be incurred by the trial of this case” even though there were only five weeks until trial).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Titre
virginislands · 2015 · confidence medium
App. 679 , 55 A.3d 713, 719 (2012) (denial of motion to withdraw premised on nonpayment of fees is immediately appealable as a collateral order “because to defer an appellate challenge to such a ruling until final judgment essentially renders it moot on arrival”).
discussed Cited "see" Norman v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore Inc. (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Franke, 207 Md.App. 679 , 55 A.3d 713 (holding that counsel would suffer undue hardship if motion to withdraw was not granted because client failed to pay over *398 $120,000 in legal fees, yet expected continued representation by counsel); Fidelity, 310 F.3d 537 (reversing an order denying appellant’s motion to withdraw because client failed to pay over $470,000 in legal fees and expenses).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of 2012 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF the STATE
Misc. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Nov 9, 2012.
55 A.3d 713
2012 Md. LEXIS 748
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland, the Governor’s legislative districting plan, introduced as House Joint Resolution No. 1 and Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, became effective on February 24, 2012, and

WHEREAS, the Office of the Attorney General having filed a motion to promulgate procedures to govern any petitions brought under Article III, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of Maryland, and

WHEREAS, challenges to the validity of the legislative districting plan having been filed and an evidentiary hearing having been held before a Special Master appointed by this Court, and

WHEREAS, oral arguments on the challenging petitions and exceptions to the report of the Special Master having been held before this Court on November 7, 2012, and

WHEREAS, the Court having determined that the Governor’s plan is consistent with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Maryland, it is this 9th day of November, 2012,

ORDERED, for reasons to be stated later in a written opinion, that the relief sought by Petitioners in these actions is denied.