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 CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. Lavabit, LLC.Fourth Circuit· 2014-04-16· cited 231×
- United States v. Tamny WestbrooksFourth Circuit· 2015-03-13· cited 23×
- United States v. Robert PeoplesFourth Circuit· 2012-10-23· cited 12×
- United States v. BrittonSeventh Circuit· 2013-10-03· cited 4×
- In Re: Under SealFourth Circuit· 2014-04-16
- United States v. Juan BrittonSeventh Circuit· 2013-10-03
- In Re Joseph A. HurleySupreme Court of Delaware· 2020-07-28
- United States v. Connie JamersonFourth Circuit· 2026-02-27
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court· 1993-04-26· cited 16,571×
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
- Puckett v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2009-03-25· cited 5,608×
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1986-07-02· cited 2,431×
- United States v. Dominguez BenitezSupreme Court· 2004-06-14· cited 2,402×
- In Re OliverSupreme Court· 1948-03-08· cited 2,065×
- International Union, United Mine Workers v. BagwellSupreme Court· 1994-06-30· cited 1,242×
- Bloom v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 1,167×
- Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1925-04-13· cited 880×
- Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.Supreme Court· 1987-05-26· cited 815×
- Taylor v. HayesSupreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 663×
- United States v. Karl v. DavidFourth Circuit· 1996-05-06· cited 175×
- United States v. Whitt NealFourth Circuit· 1996-11-27· cited 85×
- In Re Nicholas R. AllisNinth Circuit· 1976-05-13· cited 46×
- United States v. Jonathan Scott Baldwin, in Re Steven Jackson, EsquireEleventh Circuit· 1985-09-17· cited 38×
- United States v. AllenFifth Circuit· 2009-10-28· cited 31×
- United States v. Cassius HawkinsFourth Circuit· 1996-02-15· cited 30×
- United States v. Richard B. MarxFourth Circuit· 1977-04-28· cited 29×
- United States v. Larry R. LinneyFourth Circuit· 1998-01-20· cited 28×
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.