General Assembly intended defense (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

General Assembly intended defense in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 2 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Murphy v. Liberty Mutual Ins. green
md · 2022
2 sentences

2024Although the Supreme Court held in Murphy that the Chief Judge had the authority to issue administrative orders tolling statutes of limitations in light of the 11 COVID-19 public health emergency, 478 Md. at 385-86 , Murphy did not address conditions precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

2024Although the Supreme Court held in Murphy that the Chief Judge had the authority to issue administrative orders tolling statutes of limitations in light of the 11 COVID-19 public health emergency, 478 Md. at 385-86 , Murphy did not address conditions precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

22024–2024
Standiford v. Standiford green
mdctspecapp · 1991
2 sentences

2018As we pointed out in rejecting a judicially-created exception for spousal communications, "[h]ad the General Assembly intended an exception for the interception of [such] communications ..., it would have specifically provided one, as it did with respect to the use of extension telephones." Standiford , 89 Md.

2018App. at 337 , 598 A.2d 495 .

12018–2018
St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A. green
md · 2006
1 sentence

2016Id. at 98-99, 896 A.2d 304 (emphasis in original).

12016–2016
Bruce v. State neutral
mdctspecapp · 1993
2 sentences

2001Substantially in accord with the view above expressed is Bruce v. State, 96 Md.App. 510 , 625 A.2d 416 (1993).

2001Substantially in accord with the view above expressed is Bruce v. State, 96 Md.App. 510 , 625 A.2d 416 (1993).

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

VA 9 (1980–2016) MD 5 (2001–2024) CO 4 (2010–2018) IL 3 (1917–2016) PA 2 (2021–2026) OH 2 (2003–2022)

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