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 1984–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bozman v. Office of Fin., Balto. Co.green2 sentences1996See also Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md.App. 1, 6, 445 A.2d 1073 (1982) (“At English common law, the prerequisite to forfeiture was a conviction.”), affd, 296 Md. 492 , 463 A.2d 832 (1983). *478 Next, Ursery examined Emerald Cut Stones, wherein an owner of jewels—after having been acquitted of smuggling the jewels into the U.S.—intervened in the government’s action seeking the forfeiture of the jewels as contraband. 1996See also Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md.App. 1, 6, 445 A.2d 1073 (1982) (“At English common law, the prerequisite to forfeiture was a conviction.”), affd, 296 Md. 492 , 463 A.2d 832 (1983). *478 Next, Ursery examined Emerald Cut Stones, wherein an owner of jewels—after having been acquitted of smuggling the jewels into the U.S.—intervened in the government’s action seeking the forfeiture of the jewels as contraband. | 1 | 1 |
Bozman v. OFFICE OF FIN., BALTO. CTY.green2 sentences1996See also Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md.App. 1, 6, 445 A.2d 1073 (1982) (“At English common law, the prerequisite to forfeiture was a conviction.”), affd, 296 Md. 492 , 463 A.2d 832 (1983). *478 Next, Ursery examined Emerald Cut Stones, wherein an owner of jewels—after having been acquitted of smuggling the jewels into the U.S.—intervened in the government’s action seeking the forfeiture of the jewels as contraband. 1996See also Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md.App. 1, 6, 445 A.2d 1073 (1982) (“At English common law, the prerequisite to forfeiture was a conviction.”), affd, 296 Md. 492 , 463 A.2d 832 (1983). *478 Next, Ursery examined Emerald Cut Stones, wherein an owner of jewels—after having been acquitted of smuggling the jewels into the U.S.—intervened in the government’s action seeking the forfeiture of the jewels as contraband. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence2011In such a situation one who engages in the forbidden conduct is not guilty of a crime.” Id. (citations omitted), quoting Wayne R. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Ursery
green
1 sentence1996Reviewing that language, the Ursery Court emphasized that, “at common law, not only was it the case that a criminal conviction did not bar a civil forfeiture, but, in fact, the civil forfeiture could not be instituted unless a criminal conviction had already been obtained.” Ursery, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 2141 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States
green
2 sentences1996The Supreme Court did not address this issue again until forty-one years later in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, supra. As in Various Items, the Court in Emerald Cut Stones focused on the civil nature of the sanction, holding that “if for no other reason the forfeiture is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments.” One Lot Emerald Cut Stones, supra, 409 U.S. at 235 , 93 S.Ct. at 492 . 1996The Supreme Court did not address this issue again until forty-one years later in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, supra. As in Various Items, the Court in Emerald Cut Stones focused on the civil nature of the sanction, holding that “if for no other reason the forfeiture is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments.” One Lot Emerald Cut Stones, supra, 409 U.S. at 235 , 93 S.Ct. at 492 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis 1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tichnell v. State
green
2 sentences1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis 1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tichnell v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis 1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hoover v. Ronwin
green
1 sentence1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Novel v. Louisiana Exposition
green
1 sentence1990In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction the standard which we must apply is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 2374 , 80 L.Ed.2d 846 reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3564 , 82 L.Ed.2d 865 (1984) (quoting, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Noble v. State
green
2 sentences1984Therefore, there was no reversible error. 293 Md. at 571-72 , 446 A.2d at 856 . 1984Therefore, there was no reversible error. 293 Md. at 571-72 , 446 A.2d at 856 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.