four factor test (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

four factor test in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2009 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Supervisor of Assessments v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc.green
md · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Super. of Assessments v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc., 313 Md. 614, 627 , 547 A.2d 190 (1988); Group Health, 308 Md. at 159 , 517 A.2d 1076 .

1993See Super. of Assessments v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc., 313 Md. 614, 627 , 547 A.2d 190 (1988); Group Health, 308 Md. at 159 , 517 A.2d 1076 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2008In doing so, the trial court addressed the four factor test established in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

2008In doing so, the trial court addressed the four factor test established in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

22002–2008
Longus v. State green
mdctspecapp · 2009
2 sentences

2009In Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , the Supreme Court set forth a four factor test, which requires: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Accord Robinson, slip op. at 7-8; Longus, 184 Md.App. at 689 , 968 A.2d 140 .

2009In Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , the Supreme Court set forth a four factor test, which requires: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Accord Robinson, slip op. at 7-8; Longus, 184 Md.App. at 689 , 968 A.2d 140 .

12009–2009
Waller v. Georgia green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2009In Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , the Supreme Court set forth a four factor test, which requires: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Accord Robinson, slip op. at 7-8; Longus, 184 Md.App. at 689 , 968 A.2d 140 .

2009In Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , the Supreme Court set forth a four factor test, which requires: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Accord Robinson, slip op. at 7-8; Longus, 184 Md.App. at 689 , 968 A.2d 140 .

12009–2009
Department of Transportation v. Armacost green
md · 1984
2 sentences

2007Citing the four factor test of Department of Transportation v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392 , 474 A.2d 191 (1984), emphasizing the first factor, irreparable injury, the respondent observes that very little evidence of irreparable injury, if any, was provided by the complaint.

2007Citing the four factor test of Department of Transportation v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392 , 474 A.2d 191 (1984), emphasizing the first factor, irreparable injury, the respondent observes that very little evidence of irreparable injury, if any, was provided by the complaint.

12007–2007
Supervisor of Assessments v. Group Health Ass'n green
md · 1986
2 sentences

1993See Super. of Assessments v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc., 313 Md. 614, 627 , 547 A.2d 190 (1988); Group Health, 308 Md. at 159 , 517 A.2d 1076 .

1993See Super. of Assessments v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc., 313 Md. 614, 627 , 547 A.2d 190 (1988); Group Health, 308 Md. at 159 , 517 A.2d 1076 .

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MD § Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-103 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

LA 26 (1979–2014) TX 16 (1989–2025) CT 12 (2002–2024) ME 8 (2001–2021) WA 8 (2013–2024) GA 7 (1997–2024) VA 7 (1990–2016) IA 6 (1996–2025) PA 6 (1989–2023) MO 6 (1984–2007) MD 5 (1993–2009) MI 5 (1985–2020) ND 4 (1988–2024) KY 4 (2016–2024) FL 4 (1987–2017) DE 4 (2014–2023) MT 4 (1987–2012) MN 3 (1987–1993) UT 3 (2012–2024) NY 3 (2016–2024) NC 3 (1994–2017) ID 3 (2023–2024) WI 3 (2014–2024) IN 3 (1998–2019) WY 2 (2007–2020) NM 2 (1991–2003) NJ 2 (2017–2025) WV 2 (2000–2011) TN 2 (1999–2013) RI 2 (1999–1999) OR 2 (1979–1981) MS 2 (1986–2018) VT 2 (1989–2005) NH 2 (2013–2017) OH 2 (2019–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check