Smolka 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, because suppression hearing is not listed in Rule 43, the defendant’s attendance there is not required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Kolaco
  Superior Court of Delaware· 2020-12-14
• State v. Owens
  Superior Court of Delaware· 2021-12-21

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hanna v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1991-03-14· cited 38×
• United States v. Burch
  D. Delaware· 1977-05-26· cited 29×
• Robinson v. Commonwealth
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2005-11-14· cited 22×
• People v. Dashner
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2003-02-27· cited 20×
• Scott v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1996-02-15· cited 18×
• State v. Canty
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1994-12-15· cited 14×
• State v. Desirey
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-11-08· cited 7×
• Taylor v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2003-04-30· cited 7×
• People v. Logan
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2000-04-10· cited 7×
• State v. Ruperd
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2009-02-06· cited 1×
• State v. Danly
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 2010-01-22· cited 1×
• Edwards v. State
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2006-10-18· cited 1×