In re Daniel S.

How courts have described this case

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

• “ ‘ “The law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred.” ’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States v. Gregory M. Thomas
  D.C. Circuit· 1997-06-03· cited 129×
• Hagez v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1996-05-30· cited 32×
• Smiley v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2001-06-04· cited 9×
• In Matter of Tyrek S.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1997-11-06· cited 4×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Shell v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1986-07-24· cited 125×
• Wilson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1990-05-29· cited 115×
• Metz v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1970-02-18· cited 112×
• Nichols v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1968-11-13· cited 54×
• In Re Taka C.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1993-06-24· cited 11×
• Rich v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1992-09-03· cited 11×
• In Re Jason W.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1993-01-28· cited 10×
• Harper v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1969-01-29· cited 6×
• In re Jason W.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1993-11-08· cited 5×