Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1963–1970 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shorey v. Stategreen2 sentences1967Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535 (1963); Shorey v. State, 227 Md. 385 (1962). 1963Shorey v. State, 227 Md. 385, 389, 177 A. 2d 245 . * * * [T]his Court has held that a party waives his right by not objecting to the evidence at the time it was offered. | 2 | 3 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1970See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; *171 Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535 ; Baynard v. State, 2 Md. 1967Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961) held that evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure may no longer be used in a state prosecution, but it recognized that state procedural requirements to raise or preserve the question may still be respected in the case of an alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 2 |
Gaudio v. Stategreen1 sentence1969See Gaudio and Bucci v. State, 1 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. State
green
2 sentences1963As we very recently stated in Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535, 536-537 , 187 A. 2d 870 : *533 “The now famous case of Mapp v. Ohio * * * which held that evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure may no longer be used in a state prosecution, also recognized that state procedural requirements to raise or preserve the question may still be respected in the case of an alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1963As we very recently stated in Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535, 536-537 , 187 A. 2d 870 : *533 “The now famous case of Mapp v. Ohio * * * which held that evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure may no longer be used in a state prosecution, also recognized that state procedural requirements to raise or preserve the question may still be respected in the case of an alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 3 | 1963–1970 |
Baynard v. State
neutral
1 sentence1970See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; *171 Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535 ; Baynard v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.