Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2024With respect to the allocation of the burden of proof as to the Curley exception itself, Baker, 130 Md. 2024With respect to the allocation of the burden of proof as to the Curley exception itself, Baker, 130 Md. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2009Regarding the "necessary effect” prong of the Curley test, this Court has noted that a nol pros has the necessary effect of an attempt to circumvent the requirements of § 6-103(a) and Rule 4 — 271(a)(l) only "when the alternative to the nol pros would be a dismissal of the case for failure to commence trial within 180 days____Otherwise, under the teaching of the Curley case, it does not.” State v. Brown, 341 Md. 609, 618 , 672 A.2d 602, 607 (1996). 2009Regarding the "necessary effect” prong of the Curley test, this Court has noted that a nol pros has the necessary effect of an attempt to circumvent the requirements of § 6-103(a) and Rule 4 — 271(a)(l) only "when the alternative to the nol pros would be a dismissal of the case for failure to commence trial within 180 days____Otherwise, under the teaching of the Curley case, it does not.” State v. Brown, 341 Md. 609, 618 , 672 A.2d 602, 607 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Jules v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Jules v. State, 171 Md.App. 458, 476 , 910 A.2d 553, 563 (2006) (noting that the Curley analysis is inappropriate in a denial of a motion to amend case because there is no ruling by the trial court controlling the court's calendar which the State may seek to circumvent). 2009See Jules v. State, 171 Md.App. 458, 476 , 910 A.2d 553, 563 (2006) (noting that the Curley analysis is inappropriate in a denial of a motion to amend case because there is no ruling by the trial court controlling the court's calendar which the State may seek to circumvent). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Curley v. State
green
2 sentences2024If, however, it is shown that the nol pros had the purpose or the effect of circumventing the requirements of § 591 and Rule 746, the 180-day period will commence to run with the arraignment or first appearance of counsel under the first prosecution. 299 Md. at 462 . 2024The concluding sentence of the Curley opinion, 299 Md. at 462-63 , made that disjunctive nature of the exception pellucidly clear: Regardless of the prosecuting attorney’s motives, the necessary effect of the nol pros was an attempt to evade the dismissal resulting from the failure to try the case within 180 days. 12 (Emphasis supplied.) The Necessary Effect Of Circumventing Hicks The Curley exception thus covers either (or both) of two possible improprieties: 1) the State’s motive for entering the Nol Pros, to wit, its PURPOSE; or 2) the necessary consequence of the Nol Pros, to wit, its EFFE | 3 | 2000–2024 |
State v. Akopian
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Akopian, 155 Md.App. 123 , 841 A.2d 893 (2004), the intermediate appellate court applied the Curley test where the State, following denial of its request for a continuance because its key police witness was unavailable, nol prossed the charges against Akopian and re-indicted him. 2009In State v. Akopian, 155 Md.App. 123 , 841 A.2d 893 (2004), the intermediate appellate court applied the Curley test where the State, following denial of its request for a continuance because its key police witness was unavailable, nol prossed the charges against Akopian and re-indicted him. | 2 | 2009–2024 |
Ross v. State
green
2 sentences2024Those five cases were the Curley case itself; Ross v. State, 117 Md. 2024Those five cases were the Curley case itself; Ross v. State, 117 Md. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Alther v. State
neutral
2 sentences2024(Emphasis supplied.) Because the Curley exception did, therefore, apply, the 180-day countdown for the original charges resumed at the point where that countdown had been interrupted by the Nol Pros and consequently the trial date on the new charging document clearly violated the Hicks Rule: As appellant’s trial was not held within the initial 180-day period, as required by Rule 4-271 and § 6-103, and as these requirements are mandatory, dismissal of the charges against appellant is the appropriate sanction. 157 Md. 2024(Emphasis supplied.) Because the Curley exception did, therefore, apply, the 180-day countdown for the original charges resumed at the point where that countdown had been interrupted by the Nol Pros and consequently the trial date on the new charging document clearly violated the Hicks Rule: As appellant’s trial was not held within the initial 180-day period, as required by Rule 4-271 and § 6-103, and as these requirements are mandatory, dismissal of the charges against appellant is the appropriate sanction. 157 Md. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2024(Emphasis supplied.) See also State v. Phillips, 299 Md. 468 , 474 A.2d 512 (1984) (a very brief and routine application of State v. Glenn without any meaningful analysis, also written by Judge Eldridge). 2024(Emphasis supplied.) See also State v. Phillips, 299 Md. 468 , 474 A.2d 512 (1984) (a very brief and routine application of State v. Glenn without any meaningful analysis, also written by Judge Eldridge). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Glenn
green
2 sentences2024Those five cases were State v. Glenn, 299 Md. 464 , 474 A.2d 509 (1984); State 15 v. Brown, 341 Md. 609 , 672 A.2d 602 (1996); Baker v. State, 130 Md. 2024Those five cases were State v. Glenn, 299 Md. 464 , 474 A.2d 509 (1984); State 15 v. Brown, 341 Md. 609 , 672 A.2d 602 (1996); Baker v. State, 130 Md. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2009We noted specifically that the intended objectives of the statute and the rule "are to afford reasonably prompt trials, and eliminate excessive scheduling delays and unjustifiable postponements." Id. at 278 , 868 A.2d at 262 . [12] This Court, and the Court of Special Appeals, have used the Curley test to decide a number of other cases dealing with attempted circumvention of the 180-day period by the State through the use of a nol pros. 2009We noted specifically that the intended objectives of the statute and the rule "are to afford reasonably prompt trials, and eliminate excessive scheduling delays and unjustifiable postponements." Id. at 278 , 868 A.2d at 262 . [12] This Court, and the Court of Special Appeals, have used the Curley test to decide a number of other cases dealing with attempted circumvention of the 180-day period by the State through the use of a nol pros. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.