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.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wheat v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020On the other hand, when the defendant advises the trial court of the possibility of a conflict of interest, the Glasser/Holloway standard applies. “[A] court confronted with and alerted to possible conflicts of interest must take adequate steps to ascertain whether the conflicts warrant separate counsel.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). 21 B. 2020On the other hand, when the defendant advises the trial court of the possibility of a conflict of interest, the Glasser/Holloway standard applies. “[A] court confronted with and alerted to possible conflicts of interest must take adequate steps to ascertain whether the conflicts warrant separate counsel.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). 21 B. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holloway v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2007The trial court is required to “either appoint separate counsel, or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel.” Holloway, 435 U.S. at 484 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 . 2000The trial court is required to “either appoint separate counsel, or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel.” Holloway, 435 U.S. at 484 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 . | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences2017The State contends that, “because this Court went on in the First Opinion to consider the merits of Holloway’s claim, and denied *279 it, he is precluded under the law of the case doctrine from raising the substance of a coram nobis claim again.” The law of the case doctrine provides that, “once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lower courts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the ease.” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170, 183 , 840 A.2d 715 (2004). 2017The State contends that, “because this Court went on in the First Opinion to consider the merits of Holloway’s claim, and denied *279 it, he is precluded under the law of the case doctrine from raising the substance of a coram nobis claim again.” The law of the case doctrine provides that, “once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lower courts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the ease.” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170, 183 , 840 A.2d 715 (2004). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thodos v. Bland
green
2 sentences1989It should be noted that Holloway's objection here, although couched in terms of a motion for new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence, is not like the case of Thodos v. Bland, 75 Md. App. 700 , 542 A.2d 1307 (1988) which we addressed last term. 1989It should be noted that Holloway's objection here, although couched in terms of a motion for new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence, is not like the case of Thodos v. Bland, 75 Md. App. 700 , 542 A.2d 1307 (1988) which we addressed last term. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Creighton v. Ruark
green
2 sentences1974Unlike Creighton v. Ruark, 230 Md. 145 , 186 A. 2d 208 (1962), where a plea of res judicata was rejected because the parties, although they had been codefendants in a prior suit were not adversaries under the pleadings in that prior suit, Fonte and Holloway were adversaries in Fonte’s suit. 1974Unlike Creighton v. Ruark, 230 Md. 145 , 186 A. 2d 208 (1962), where a plea of res judicata was rejected because the parties, although they had been codefendants in a prior suit were not adversaries under the pleadings in that prior suit, Fonte and Holloway were adversaries in Fonte’s suit. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.