Skip to main content
Fourth Circuit· 3/26/2010

In Re Gates

Citations

  • 600 F.3d 333
  • 2010 WL 1140698

How courts have described this case

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

  • \[C]ourts of common pleas possess inherent power to appoint special prosecutors in criminal matters.” (quoting State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland
  • holding that mere tardiness, like failure to appear, does not occur “in the actual presence of the court” and therefore is not subject to summary punishment (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • concluding that a remand “would serve no purpose” where the record was “devoid of evidence” that the defense attorney willfully failed to appear on time for plea hearing or failed to appear on other occasions
  • concluding that a remand “would serve no purpose” where the record was “devoid of evidence” that the defense attorney willfully failed to appear on time for plea hearing or failed to appear on other occasions
  • finding the failure to provide notice of contempt charges was error “of the most fundamental kind” and “[n]otice of criminal charges and an opportunity to respond” are “bedrock principles” that caused the court to “correct the error”
  • “[M]ere tardiness or absence at a scheduled court appearance is not a direct contempt subject to summary disposition under Rule 42(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Traxler, Chief Judge, and King and Gregory, Circuit Judges

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.