Folk v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a circuit court retains the fundamental jurisdiction to rule on a defendant’s motion for a new trial even when an appeal is pending in the Court of Special Appeals
• holding that a circuit court retains the fundamental jurisdiction to rule on a defendant's motion for a new trial even when an appeal is pending in the Court of Special Appeals

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cottman v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2006-12-08· cited 38×
• Redemptorists v. Coulthard Services, Inc.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2002-06-28· cited 33×
• County Commissioners of Carroll County v. Carroll Craft Retail, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2004-12-03· cited 25×
• Brethren Mutual Insurance v. Suchoza
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-05-29· cited 13×

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pulley v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1980-04-10· cited 99×
• Walker v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1995-05-10· cited 55×
• In Re Parris W.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-04-16· cited 53×
• Love v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1993-02-26· cited 40×
• Jackson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-05-10· cited 33×
• United States v. David Jackson
  Tenth Circuit· 1991-11-18· cited 32×
• Johnson v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2002-01-04· cited 26×
• United States v. Gustavo Larios Cortes
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-02-08· cited 21×
• State v. Bryant
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-11-14· cited 15×
• Ruth v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2000-06-01· cited 13×
• Edsall v. Anne Arundel County
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1993-11-08· cited 13×
• Jameson v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1990-05-14· cited 11×
• United States v. Thomas Howard Garrison
  Eleventh Circuit· 1992-06-23· cited 7×