revised rule (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

revised rule in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2011 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Nf&M Corporation v. United Steelworkers Of Americagreen
ca3 · 1975 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985In United Electrical, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated the following: “Although a mere error in the determination of factual issues is not sufficient to disturb an arbitration award, NF & M Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 524 F.2d 756, 759 (3rd Cir.1975), if the arbitrator assumes the existence of a fact that is central to the award and an examination of the record reveals no support whatever for the arbitrator’s assumption, an award cannot stand. * # * * * * These principles of labor arbitration are in accord with long established equitable doctrine wi

1985In United Electrical, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated the following: "Although a mere error in the determination of factual issues is not sufficient to disturb an arbitration award, NF & M Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 524 F.2d 756, 759 (3rd Cir. 1975), if the arbitrator assumes the existence of a fact that is central to the award and an examination of the record reveals no support whatever for the arbitrator's assumption, an award cannot stand. * * * * * * These principles of labor arbitration are in accord with long established equitable doctrine w

22
Miller v. Wardengreen
mdctspecapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
2 sentences

1979The former rule had been silent as to the mechanics of the election, and the revised rule went no further with respect to the procedural aspects of the election to be tried by jury or by court than to prescribe that “[s]uch election shall be made by the accused in open court when first called upon to plead after he is represented by counsel of record or has waived counsel.” It spoke in terms of “election” rather than “waiver,” see Miller v. Warden, 16 Md.

1979The former rule had been silent as to the mechanics of the election, and the revised rule went no further with respect to the procedural aspects of the election to be tried by jury or by court than to prescribe that "[s]uch election shall be made by the accused in open court when first called upon to plead after he is represented by counsel of record or has waived counsel." It spoke in terms of "election" rather than "waiver," see Miller v. Warden, 16 Md.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
United Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers of America, Local 1139 v. Litton Microwave Cooking Products, Litton Systems, Inc. green
ca8 · 1983
2 sentences

1985PGCEÁ first urges this Court to adopt a revised standard of review for arbitration awards such as the one enunciated by the Eighth Circuit in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Litton Microwave Cooking Products, Litton Systems, 704 F.2d 393 (8th Cir.1983).

1985PGCEA first urges this Court to adopt a revised standard of review for arbitration awards such as the one enunciated by the Eighth Circuit in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Litton Microwave Cooking Products, Litton Systems, 704 F.2d 393 (8th Cir.1983).

21985–1985
Lancaster v. State green
md · 2009
2 sentences

2011My research has disclosed only two cases addressing the scope of the State’s discovery obligations to the defense after adoption of the revised rule. 6 Lancaster v. State, 410 Md. 352, 370-82 , 978 A.2d 717 (2009), dealt with a protective order issued for State’s witnesses allegedly threatened by the defendant.

2011My research has disclosed only two cases addressing the scope of the State’s discovery obligations to the defense after adoption of the revised rule. 6 Lancaster v. State, 410 Md. 352, 370-82 , 978 A.2d 717 (2009), dealt with a protective order issued for State’s witnesses allegedly threatened by the defendant.

12011–2011
State v. Williams green
md · 2006
2 sentences

2011(Emphasis added.) The rule cross-references State v. Williams, 392 Md. 194 , 896 A.2d 973 (2006), a case which predates the revised rule’s adoption.

2011(Emphasis added.) The rule cross-references State v. Williams, 392 Md. 194 , 896 A.2d 973 (2006), a case which predates the revised rule’s adoption.

12011–2011
Miller v. Montgomery County green
mdctspecapp · 1985
2 sentences

1997In Miller v. Montgomery County, 64 Md.App. 202, 214-15 , 494 A.2d 761 , cert. denied, 304 Md. 299 , 498 A.2d 1185 (1985), Judge Bloom, writing for this Court, explained the effect spoilation of evidence might have on the spoliator’s case as follows: The destruction or alteration of evidence by a party gives rise to inferences or presumptions unfavorable to the spoliator, the nature of the inference being dependent upon the intent or motivation of the party.

1997In Miller v. Montgomery County, 64 Md.App. 202, 214-15 , 494 A.2d 761 , cert. denied, 304 Md. 299 , 498 A.2d 1185 (1985), Judge Bloom, writing for this Court, explained the effect spoilation of evidence might have on the spoliator’s case as follows: The destruction or alteration of evidence by a party gives rise to inferences or presumptions unfavorable to the spoliator, the nature of the inference being dependent upon the intent or motivation of the party.

11997–1997

Where else courts name it

CA 38 (1963–2024) NJ 20 (1956–2025) FL 18 (1977–2021) TX 16 (1976–2018) IL 15 (1965–2025) AR 14 (1958–2024) PA 14 (1989–2024) IA 11 (1974–2026) WA 10 (1986–2019) MA 9 (1993–2024) IN 8 (1986–2025) NY 8 (1982–2025) DC 6 (1976–2024) MS 6 (2001–2019) OR 5 (2006–2017) KS 5 (1981–2009) MD 5 (1979–2011) WI 4 (1981–2014) MO 4 (1967–2020) NM 4 (1996–2010) GA 4 (1973–1991) CO 4 (1979–2018) WV 3 (2013–2015) UT 3 (1993–2019) AZ 3 (2015–2024) AK 3 (1973–1992) AL 2 (1969–2014) RI 2 (1969–2007) CT 2 (1972–2009) ME 2 (2016–2023) MN 2 (2003–2009) MI 2 (1988–2005) HI 2 (2002–2022) NV 2 (2007–2018) MT 2 (2013–2020) OH 2 (1990–2008) WY 2 (1999–1999)

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