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 1 courts 1965–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skok v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Skok , we expanded the scope of the common law writ of error coram nobis to serve not merely as a remedy for errors of fact, but also as “a remedy for a convicted person who is not incarcerat *591 ed and not on parole or probation, who is suddenly faced with a significant collateral consequence of his or her conviction, and who can legitimately challenge the conviction on constitutional or fundamental grounds.” Id. at 78 , 760 A.2d 647 . 2015In Skok , we expanded the scope of the common law writ of error coram nobis to serve not merely as a remedy for errors of fact, but also as “a remedy for a convicted person who is not incarcerat *591 ed and not on parole or probation, who is suddenly faced with a significant collateral consequence of his or her conviction, and who can legitimately challenge the conviction on constitutional or fundamental grounds.” Id. at 78 , 760 A.2d 647 . | 1 | 2 |
Fairbanks v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Fairbanks v. State, 331 Md. 482, 486 , 629 A.2d 63, 65 (1993). 2011Fairbanks v. State, 331 Md. 482, 486 , 629 A.2d 63, 65 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rivera v. State
green
2 sentences2015Rivera v. State, 409 Md. 176 , 191 n. 6, 973 A.2d 218 , 227 n. 6 (2009) (quoting Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52, 78-80 , 760 A.2d 647, 661-62 (2000)). 2015Rivera v. State, 409 Md. 176 , 191 n. 6, 973 A.2d 218 , 227 n. 6 (2009) (quoting Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52, 78-80 , 760 A.2d 647, 661-62 (2000)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Madison v. State
green
2 sentences1999We expressly recognized its use and availability in Madison, 205 Md. at 432 , 109 A.2d at 99 . 1999We expressly recognized its use and availability in Madison, 205 Md. at 432 , 109 A.2d at 99 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Jacob
green
2 sentences1965To me it is incredible that a people’s court established by law pursuant to constitutional authority does not have power to issue a writ of error coram nobis in a proper case to review its own judgment as to an alleged error of fact in order to determine whether or not the judgment should be vacated as void. 2 The explicit holding 3 of the majority to the effect that the People’s Court of Prince George’s County was without power to vacate a judgment of conviction and to grant a new trial in the absence of specific statutory authority to do so is based primarily on the cases of State v. Jacob, 1965To me it is incredible that a people’s court established by law pursuant to constitutional authority does not have power to issue a writ of error coram nobis in a proper case to review its own judgment as to an alleged error of fact in order to determine whether or not the judgment should be vacated as void. 2 The explicit holding 3 of the majority to the effect that the People’s Court of Prince George’s County was without power to vacate a judgment of conviction and to grant a new trial in the absence of specific statutory authority to do so is based primarily on the cases of State v. Jacob, | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Matter of Hogan v. N.Y. Supreme Court
green
2 sentences1965In Hogan v. Supreme Court, 65 N. E. 2d 181 (1946), the Court of Appeals of New York, after stating that a court not of record or continuing jurisdiction was not debarred from entertaining a cor am nobis application when no other remedy is available to vacate a judgment which was void because of fraud, held that the refusal of a court of special sessions to deal with the matter by way of coram nobis would deprive the appellants of their constitutional rights to due process. 1965In Hogan v. Supreme Court, 65 N.E.2d 181 (1946), the Court of Appeals of New York, after stating that a court not of record or continuing jurisdiction was not debarred from entertaining a coram nobis application when no other remedy is available to vacate a judgment which was void because of fraud, held that the refusal of a court of special sessions to deal with the matter by way of coram nobis would deprive the appellants of their constitutional rights to due process. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Frazier v. Griffie
green
2 sentences1965To me it is incredible that a people’s court established by law pursuant to constitutional authority does not have power to issue a writ of error coram nobis in a proper case to review its own judgment as to an alleged error of fact in order to determine whether or not the judgment should be vacated as void. 2 The explicit holding 3 of the majority to the effect that the People’s Court of Prince George’s County was without power to vacate a judgment of conviction and to grant a new trial in the absence of specific statutory authority to do so is based primarily on the cases of State v. Jacob, 1965To me it is incredible that a people's court established by law pursuant to constitutional authority does not have power to issue a writ of error coram nobis in a proper case to review its own judgment as to an alleged error of fact in order to determine whether or not the judgment should be vacated as void. [2] *14 The explicit holding [3] of the majority to the effect that the People's Court of Prince George's County was without power to vacate a judgment of conviction and to grant a new trial in the absence of specific statutory authority to do so is based primarily on the cases of State v. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.