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 1965–1978 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Abrahamsgreen2 sentences1978Ironically, under McGuire the majority would find no error had the testimony of the expert been simply that after listening to the recorded voice of the individual who had called the prosecuting witness and recordings of the voice of Reed it was his opinion that the voices were identical. 18 It is because he stated a reason for his conclusion that the voices are identical, not relying solely upon his aural comparison, that the case goes back for a new trial, although Chief Judge Prescott said in Miller v. Abrahams, 239 Md. 263, 273 , 211 A. 2d 309 (1965), a zoning case, “the prevailing general 1978Ironically, under McGuire the majority would find no error had the testimony of the expert been simply that after listening to the recorded voice of the individual who had called the prosecuting witness and recordings of the voice of Reed it was his opinion that the voices were identical. 18 It is because he stated a reason for his conclusion that the voices are identical, not relying solely upon his aural comparison, that the case goes back for a new trial, although Chief Judge Prescott said in Miller v. Abrahams, 239 Md. 263, 273 , 211 A. 2d 309 (1965), a zoning case, “the prevailing general | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State, Use of Stickley v. Critzer
green
2 sentences1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 ." Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A.2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A.2d 838 (1970). 1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 .” Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A. 2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A. 2d 838 (1970). | 2 | 1965–1978 |
Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 .” Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A. 2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A. 2d 838 (1970). 1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 .” Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A. 2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A. 2d 838 (1970). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Surkovich v. Doub
green
2 sentences1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 .” Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A. 2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A. 2d 838 (1970). 1978Cf. State, etc. v. Critzer, 230 Md. 286 .” Accord, Surkovich v. Doub, 258 Md. 263, 272 , 265 A. 2d 447 (1970); and Creswell v. Baltimore Aviation, 257 Md. 712, 721 , 264 A. 2d 838 (1970). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Smith v. BOARD OF CTY. COMM'RS OF HOWARD CTY.
green
2 sentences1970What was said by Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond, speaking for the Court in Dill v. The Jobar Corp., 242 Md. 16 , 217 A. 2d 564 (1966), and quoted with approval in Smith v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Howard County, 252 Md. 280, 284 , 249 A. 2d 708 (1969) is apposite here: “The opinion of an expert that there was error in the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning is not evidence substantial or strong enough to support a finding of original error unless the reasons given by the expert as the basis of his opinion, or other supporting facts relied on by him, are in themselves substantial and str 1970What was said by Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond, speaking for the Court in Dill v. The Jobar Corp., 242 Md. 16 , 217 A. 2d 564 (1966), and quoted with approval in Smith v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Howard County, 252 Md. 280, 284 , 249 A. 2d 708 (1969) is apposite here: “The opinion of an expert that there was error in the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning is not evidence substantial or strong enough to support a finding of original error unless the reasons given by the expert as the basis of his opinion, or other supporting facts relied on by him, are in themselves substantial and str | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Dill v. Jobar Corporation
green
2 sentences1970What was said by Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond, speaking for the Court in Dill v. The Jobar Corp., 242 Md. 16 , 217 A. 2d 564 (1966), and quoted with approval in Smith v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Howard County, 252 Md. 280, 284 , 249 A. 2d 708 (1969) is apposite here: “The opinion of an expert that there was error in the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning is not evidence substantial or strong enough to support a finding of original error unless the reasons given by the expert as the basis of his opinion, or other supporting facts relied on by him, are in themselves substantial and str 1970What was said by Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond, speaking for the Court in Dill v. The Jobar Corp., 242 Md. 16 , 217 A. 2d 564 (1966), and quoted with approval in Smith v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Howard County, 252 Md. 280, 284 , 249 A. 2d 708 (1969) is apposite here: “The opinion of an expert that there was error in the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning is not evidence substantial or strong enough to support a finding of original error unless the reasons given by the expert as the basis of his opinion, or other supporting facts relied on by him, are in themselves substantial and str | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Hunter v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence1970We have consistently held that “the prevailing general rule, almost universally followed, is that an expert’s opinion is of no greater probative value than the soundness of his reasons given therefor will warrant.” Miller v. Abrahams, 239 Md. 263, 273 , 211 A. 2d 309 (1965); Hunter v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Carroll County, 252 Md. *582 305, 310, 250 A. 2d 81 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Greenblatt v. Toney Schloss Properties Corp.
green
1 sentence1966In Miller v. Abrahams, supra at 273, in reversing the Board’s action in finding original error (largely on the testimony of the expert who testified in the case before us), on the ground there was no strong or probative evidence to sustain it, Judge Prescott, for the majority of the Court, said that the expert was recognized as such in the field of planning and zoning, but added: “However, the prevailing general rule, almost universally followed, is that an expert’s opinion is of no greater probative value than the soundness of his reasons given therefor will warrant.” In Greenblatt v. Toney S | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.