Boyd v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• adopting the reasons given in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals
• adopting the reasons given in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals
• “[t]he Agreement, as we have seen, is a comprehensive one, and all of its parts have to be read together, in harmony, in order to carry out its dual purpose”
• read as whole, IAD does not require unrelated indictments in different counties to be tried before returning defendant to District of Columbia correctional facility, where defendant brought to State under one indictment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bunting v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-05-05· cited 58×
• Painter v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2004-05-05· cited 26×
• State v. Jefferson
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1990-06-12· cited 22×
• Boyd v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1982-07-27· cited 18×
• State v. Sephus
  Tex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2000-11-01· cited 18×
• Gillard v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1986-03-11· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Wilson
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2004-12-22· cited 12×
• Marshall v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1986-07-21· cited 11×
• Laster v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-09-09· cited 8×
• Pitts v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2012-06-05· cited 7×
• Bunting v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1989-10-04· cited 4×
• State v. Hill
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1993-01-22· cited 2×
• Aleman v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2019-09-25