McKnight analysis (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

McKnight analysis in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2016 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Osburn v. Stategreen
md · 1984 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1997–2016
2 sentences

2016See Osburn, 301 Md. at 254-55 , 482 A.2d at 907 (ending the analysis upon a finding of mutual admissibility). *374 In both Osburn and Ogonowski , the evidence involved was mutually admissible, meaning that it would have been admissible against the defendant requesting severance had he been given a separate trial.

2016See Osburn, 301 Md. at 254-55 , 482 A.2d at 907 (ending the analysis upon a finding of mutual admissibility). *374 In both Osburn and Ogonowski , the evidence involved was mutually admissible, meaning that it would have been admissible against the defendant requesting severance had he been given a separate trial.

12
Conyers v. Stategreen
md · 1997 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See also Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 552 , 693 A.2d 781, 794 (1997) (“McKnight’s holding, technically, did not apply to multiple defendant join-der, but this Court has stated that the McKnight analysis is also the proper way to determine the propriety of multiple defendant joinder.”).

2016See also Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 552 , 693 A.2d 781, 794 (1997) (“McKnight’s holding, technically, did not apply to multiple defendant join-der, but this Court has stated that the McKnight analysis is also the proper way to determine the propriety of multiple defendant joinder.”).

11
Solomon v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Solomon, 101 Md.App. at 340, 646 A.2d at 1068 ; Conyers, 345 Md. at 552 , 693 A.2d at 794 .

2016Solomon, 101 Md.App. at 340, 646 A.2d at 1068 ; Conyers, 345 Md. at 552 , 693 A.2d at 794 .

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 (21)

CaseCitedYears
McKnight v. State green
md · 1977
2 sentences

1997We held that, under such circumstances, it was error for the trial judge to deny McKnight’s motion to sever: “We think that a defendant charged with similar but unrelated offenses is entitled to a severance where he establishes that the evidence as to each individual offense would not be mutually admissible at separate trials.” McKnight, 280 Md. at 612 , 375 A.2d at 556 .

1997We held that, under such circumstances, it was error for the trial judge to deny McKnight’s motion to sever: “We think that a defendant charged with similar but unrelated offenses is entitled to a severance where he establishes that the evidence as to each individual offense would not be mutually admissible at separate trials.” McKnight, 280 Md. at 612 , 375 A.2d at 556 .

11997–1997
Erman v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1981
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Ellerba v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1979
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
McKinney v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1990
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Moore v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1990
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Marks v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1990
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Cook v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1990
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Tyler v. State green
md · 1993
2 sentences

1994Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261, 623 A.2d 648 (1993); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994).

1994Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261, 623 A.2d 648 (1993); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994).

11994–1994
Eiland v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1992
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Sye v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1983
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Epps v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1982
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Ogonowski v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1991
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Shingleton v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1978
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Kearney v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1991
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Wieland v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1994
2 sentences

1994Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261, 623 A.2d 648 (1993); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994).

1994Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261, 623 A.2d 648 (1993); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994).

11994–1994
Stevenson v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1979
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Samuels v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1983
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Manuel v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1990
2 sentences

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

1994The decisions of this Court following the McKnight analysis include Shingleton v. State, 39 Md.App. 527 , 387 A.2d 1134 , cert. denied, 283 Md. 738 (1978); Ellerba v. State, 41 Md.App. 712 , 398 A.2d 1250 (1979); Stevenson v. State, 43 Md.App. 120 , 403 A.2d 812 (1979); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605 , 434 A.2d 1030 (1981); Epps v. State, 52 Md.App. 308, 450 A.2d 913 (1982); Samuels v. State, 54 Md.App. 486 , 459 A.2d 213 (1983); Sye v. State, 55 Md.App. 356, 468 A.2d 641 (1983); McKinney v. State, 82 Md.App. 111 , 570 A.2d 360 (1990); Moore v. State, 84 Md.App. 165 , 578 A.2d 304 (1990); Cook

11994–1994
Tichnell v. State green
md · 1980
2 sentences

1990The proximity of time and space within which the offenses were committed distinguished the case from Jones and McKnight See Tichnell, 287 Md. at 712-713 , 415 A.2d 830 .

1990The proximity of time and space within which the offenses were committed distinguished the case from Jones and McKnight See Tichnell, 287 Md. at 712-713 , 415 A.2d 830 .

11990–1990
Ross v. State green
md · 1976
2 sentences

1979We think it quite plain that had the evidence supported the early claims of the prosecution that the “means” were *730 basically the same, that is, that the same incendiary devices were utilized at each property, joinder would have been proper under the so-called “signature” or “handiwork” exceptions recognized by the Court of Appeals in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 670 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976) and discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Lebedun v. State, 283 Md. 257 , 390 A. 2d 64 (1978).

1979We think it quite plain that had the evidence supported the early claims of the prosecution that the “means” were *730 basically the same, that is, that the same incendiary devices were utilized at each property, joinder would have been proper under the so-called “signature” or “handiwork” exceptions recognized by the Court of Appeals in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 670 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976) and discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Lebedun v. State, 283 Md. 257 , 390 A. 2d 64 (1978).

11979–1979
Lebedun v. State green
md · 1978
2 sentences

1979We think it quite plain that had the evidence supported the early claims of the prosecution that the “means” were *730 basically the same, that is, that the same incendiary devices were utilized at each property, joinder would have been proper under the so-called “signature” or “handiwork” exceptions recognized by the Court of Appeals in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 670 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976) and discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Lebedun v. State, 283 Md. 257 , 390 A. 2d 64 (1978).

1979We think it quite plain that had the evidence supported the early claims of the prosecution that the “means” were *730 basically the same, that is, that the same incendiary devices were utilized at each property, joinder would have been proper under the so-called “signature” or “handiwork” exceptions recognized by the Court of Appeals in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 670 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976) and discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Lebedun v. State, 283 Md. 257 , 390 A. 2d 64 (1978).

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

MD 5 (1979–2016) CA 4 (1943–2015) NY 2 (1995–2005) OH 2 (2008–2021) PA 2 (1983–2004) IN 2 (2013–2013)

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