32 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bhagwat v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The Court of Appeals articulated a two-part inquiry in Bhagwat v. State: “(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good *428 faith[.]” 338 Md. 263, 272 , 658 A.2d 244 (1995) (citations omitted). 2016The Court of Appeals articulated a two-part inquiry in Bhagwat v. State: “(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good *428 faith[.]” 338 Md. 263, 272 , 658 A.2d 244 (1995) (citations omitted). | 3 | 5 |
Adkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2016In Adkins v. State, the Court of Appeals related that the “Vandegrifi factors serve [only] as guidelines to assess the overall circumstances of the invocation of the privilege.” 316 Md. 1, 13 , 557 A.2d 203 (1989). 2016In Adkins v. State, the Court of Appeals related that the “Vandegrifi factors serve [only] as guidelines to assess the overall circumstances of the invocation of the privilege.” 316 Md. 1, 13 , 557 A.2d 203 (1989). | 1 | 4 |
Choi v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Bhagwat, we reiterated the test for the witness’s entitlement to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege as follows: “The test of the witness’s entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination—(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, was well stated in Choi v. State, 316 Md. 529 , 560 A.2d 1108 (1989). 2006In Bhagwat, we reiterated the test for the witness’s entitlement to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege as follows: “The test of the witness’s entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination—(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, was well stated in Choi v. State, 316 Md. 529 , 560 A.2d 1108 (1989). | 1 | 4 |
Simmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2010We have framed the Hoffman standard as a two-part inquiry: "(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith[.]" Simmons, 392 Md. at 298 , 896 A.2d at 1034 (quoting Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995)). 2010We have framed the Hoffman standard as a two-part inquiry: "(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith[.]" Simmons, 392 Md. at 298 , 896 A.2d at 1034 (quoting Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995)). | 1 | 2 |
Vandegrift v. Stategreen2 sentences2002This Court reversed Vandegrift’s guilty verdict, holding that “the actions of the prosecutor in the case before us were prejudicial.” Vandegrift, 237 Md. 305, 309 , 206 A.2d 250, 253 (1965). 1996Nonetheless, the Court in Adkins said that the “Vandegrift factors serve [only] as guidelines to assess the overall circumstances of the invocation of the privilege.” Id., 316 Md. at 13 , 557 A.2d 203 . | 1 | 2 |
Jacobs v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Jacobs v. State, 45 Md.App. 634, 653 , 415 A.2d 590 (1980) ("The law is well-settled that the invocation of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination is a sufficient showing of unavailability.”) (citing Harris v. State, 40 Md.App. 58, 63 , 387 A.2d 1152 (1978)); Md. 2001See, e.g., Jacobs v. State, 45 Md.App. 634, 653 , 415 A.2d 590 (1980) ("The law is well-settled that the invocation of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination is a sufficient showing of unavailability.”) (citing Harris v. State, 40 Md.App. 58, 63 , 387 A.2d 1152 (1978)); Md. | 1 | 2 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc.green1 sentence2022Nev. 1991)), and whether the opposing party was prejudiced by the prior invocation of the privilege, id. at 725-26 (citing Sharp, 782 F. Supp. at 1452 , and FTC v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1282, 1290 (D. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Edmondgreen1 sentence2022In such cases, “particularly if the litigant’s request to waive comes only at the ‘eleventh hour’ and appears to be part of a manipulative, ‘cat-and-mouse approach’ to the litigation, a trial court may be fully entitled, for example, to bar a litigant from testifying later about matters previously hidden from discovery through an invocation of the privilege.” 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 84-85 ; see also In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304, 1308 (4th Cir. 1991) (“By selectively asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, Edmond attempted to insure that his unquestioned, unverified affidavit would be th | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Longgreen1 sentence2018However, "the prevailing rule [is] that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify ...." Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308 , 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) (citing Wigmore § 2272, at 439); see also Long v. Long , 141 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2012In those jurisdictions that have permitted the invocation of the doctrine of laches to bar a long-delayed application for postconviction relief, it has been held that the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the state is prejudiced by the delay.[] See, e.g., Wright, 711 So.2d at 67 (“Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of the defendant in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.”); Walker, 769 N.E.2d at 1167 (“To succeed, the | 1 | 1 |
Curtis C. Oliver v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012In those jurisdictions that have permitted the invocation of the doctrine of laches to bar a long-delayed application for postconviction relief, it has been held that the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the state is prejudiced by the delay.[] See, e.g., Wright, 711 So.2d at 67 (“Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of the defendant in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.”); Walker, 769 N.E.2d at 1167 (“To succeed, the | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Senate Masonry, Inc.green2 sentences2004In the recent case of Carter v. Senate Masonry, Inc., 156 Md.App. 162, 168-169 , 846 A.2d 50,54 (2004), we reviewed the elements requisite to an invocation of the doctrine of last clear chance: As this Court explained in Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental, Inc., 130 Md.App. 193, 216 , 745 A.2d 457 (2000): [T]he doctrine of last clear chance permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is satisfied: (i) the defendant is negligent; (ii) the plaintiff is contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes “a showi 2004In the recent case of Carter v. Senate Masonry, Inc., 156 Md.App. 162, 168-169 , 846 A.2d 50,54 (2004), we reviewed the elements requisite to an invocation of the doctrine of last clear chance: As this Court explained in Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental, Inc., 130 Md.App. 193, 216 , 745 A.2d 457 (2000): [T]he doctrine of last clear chance permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is satisfied: (i) the defendant is negligent; (ii) the plaintiff is contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes “a showi | 1 | 1 |
| Veney v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Woodson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Booth v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). 2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Littreal v. Redwinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohenseegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nunezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dikemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Horner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cudjogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Berrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hughesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Villarrealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States of America Ex Rel. Johnnie L. Savory v. Michael Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vincent Coppola v. Ronald L. Powell, Etc.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cecil L. Bursongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Cullgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Newbert v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lipsitz v. Parrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wolfle v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences1987The Court in Smith concluded that, under the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-487 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), the possibility of a subsequent trial on the same criminal charges was sufficient to uphold the witness’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. 1987The Court in Smith concluded that, under the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-487 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), the possibility of a subsequent trial on the same criminal charges was sufficient to uphold the witness’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. | 3 | 1987–2016 |
Crosby v. State
green
2 sentences2006The Court of Appeals considered whether that *25 refusal amounted to an invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination and, if so, whether the testimony concerning such invocation was improperly permitted at trial, and thus “impinged” the defendant’s “constitutional right to remain silent.” Id. at 529-30 , 784 A.2d 1102 . 2006The Court of Appeals considered whether that *25 refusal amounted to an invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination and, if so, whether the testimony concerning such invocation was improperly permitted at trial, and thus “impinged” the defendant’s “constitutional right to remain silent.” Id. at 529-30 , 784 A.2d 1102 . | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Midgett v. State
green
2 sentences2002Likewise, in Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995), Chief Judge Bell, then Judge Bell, stated for the Court that: "The test of the witness's entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, see Adkins v. State, supra, 316 Md. at 6-7 , 557 A.2d at 205-06 ; Richardson v. State, supra, 285 Md. at 265 , 401 A.2d at 1024 ; Midgett v. State, 223 Md. at 288-92 , 164 A.2d at 529-31 ; McLain, Maryland Evidence, supra, § 514.1, at 6 2002Likewise, in Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995), Chief Judge Bell, then Judge Bell, stated for the Court that: "The test of the witness's entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, see Adkins v. State, supra, 316 Md. at 6-7 , 557 A.2d at 205-06 ; Richardson v. State, supra, 285 Md. at 265 , 401 A.2d at 1024 ; Midgett v. State, 223 Md. at 288-92 , 164 A.2d at 529-31 ; McLain, Maryland Evidence, supra, § 514.1, at 6 | 2 | 1995–2002 |
Richardson v. State
green
2 sentences2002Likewise, in Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995), Chief Judge Bell, then Judge Bell, stated for the Court that: "The test of the witness's entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, see Adkins v. State, supra, 316 Md. at 6-7 , 557 A.2d at 205-06 ; Richardson v. State, supra, 285 Md. at 265 , 401 A.2d at 1024 ; Midgett v. State, 223 Md. at 288-92 , 164 A.2d at 529-31 ; McLain, Maryland Evidence, supra, § 514.1, at 6 2002Likewise, in Bhagwat v. State, 338 Md. 263, 272-73 , 658 A.2d 244, 248 (1995), Chief Judge Bell, then Judge Bell, stated for the Court that: "The test of the witness's entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, see Adkins v. State, supra, 316 Md. at 6-7 , 557 A.2d at 205-06 ; Richardson v. State, supra, 285 Md. at 265 , 401 A.2d at 1024 ; Midgett v. State, 223 Md. at 288-92 , 164 A.2d at 529-31 ; McLain, Maryland Evidence, supra, § 514.1, at 6 | 2 | 1995–2002 |
United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known As
green
2 sentences2022In such cases, “particularly if the litigant’s request to waive comes only at the ‘eleventh hour’ and appears to be part of a manipulative, ‘cat-and-mouse approach’ to the litigation, a trial court may be fully entitled, for example, to bar a litigant from testifying later about matters previously hidden from discovery through an invocation of the privilege.” 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 84-85 ; see also In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304, 1308 (4th Cir. 1991) (“By selectively asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, Edmond attempted to insure that his unquestioned, unverified affidavit would be th 2022But the Fifth Amendment 53 privilege cannot be invoked as a shield to oppose depositions while discarding it for the limited purpose of making statements to support a summary judgment motion.”).19 We agree with the Second Circuit that, “[i]n the end, exactly how a trial court should respond to a request to withdraw the privilege – or indeed, more generally, how it should react to any motion precipitated by a litigant’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding – necessarily depends on the precise facts and circumstances of each case.” 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 85 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Odom v. Frank
green
2 sentences2022Nev. 1991)), and whether the opposing party was prejudiced by the prior invocation of the privilege, id. at 725-26 (citing Sharp, 782 F. Supp. at 1452 , and FTC v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1282, 1290 (D. 2022Nev. 1991)), and whether the opposing party was prejudiced by the prior invocation of the privilege, id. at 725-26 (citing Sharp, 782 F. Supp. at 1452 , and FTC v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1282, 1290 (D. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Attorney Grievance v. Malone
green
1 sentence2022As we explained in Malone I, id. at 284 n.20, 269 A.3d at 317 n.20, Malone invoked the privilege in bad faith in several instances during his deposition. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Stokes v. State
green
1 sentence2020(Emphasis supplied.) 289 Md. at 163 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kramer v. Levitt
green
2 sentences2018The Fifth Amendment privilege "applies not only at trial, but at the discovery stage as well." Id. at 582 , 558 A.2d 760 ; see also Md. 2018The Fifth Amendment privilege "applies not only at trial, but at the discovery stage as well." Id. at 582 , 558 A.2d 760 ; see also Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Baxter v. Palmigiano
green
2 sentences2018However, "the prevailing rule [is] that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify ...." Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308 , 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) (citing Wigmore § 2272, at 439); see also Long v. Long , 141 Md. 2018However, "the prevailing rule [is] that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify ...." Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308 , 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) (citing Wigmore § 2272, at 439); see also Long v. Long , 141 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Girardeau v. State
green
2 sentences2010He conceded “... the absence of any express constitutional or statutory provision authorizing the invocation of the privilege asserted.” Id. 2010The court explained that Girardeau’s “assumptions concerning the existence of the privilege are based primarily upon premises extracted from two Florida constitutional provisions, aided by principles drawn from federal and state constitutional law....” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gray v. State
green
2 sentences2009See also *508 Simmons, 392 Md. at 298 , 896 A.2d 1023 ; Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529, 553 , 796 A.2d 697 (2002). 2009See also *508 Simmons, 392 Md. at 298 , 896 A.2d 1023 ; Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529, 553 , 796 A.2d 697 (2002). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Burdette v. ROCKVILLE CRANE RENTAL, CORP.
green
2 sentences2004In the recent case of Carter v. Senate Masonry, Inc., 156 Md.App. 162, 168-169 , 846 A.2d 50,54 (2004), we reviewed the elements requisite to an invocation of the doctrine of last clear chance: As this Court explained in Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental, Inc., 130 Md.App. 193, 216 , 745 A.2d 457 (2000): [T]he doctrine of last clear chance permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is satisfied: (i) the defendant is negligent; (ii) the plaintiff is contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes “a showi 2004In the recent case of Carter v. Senate Masonry, Inc., 156 Md.App. 162, 168-169 , 846 A.2d 50,54 (2004), we reviewed the elements requisite to an invocation of the doctrine of last clear chance: As this Court explained in Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental, Inc., 130 Md.App. 193, 216 , 745 A.2d 457 (2000): [T]he doctrine of last clear chance permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is satisfied: (i) the defendant is negligent; (ii) the plaintiff is contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes “a showi | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Maloney v. West Virginia
green
2 sentences2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). 2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152,153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 *739 S.Ct. 1284, 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Booth v. Maryland
red
2 sentences2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). 2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Hook v. United States green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Marotta v. United States
green
2 sentences2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). 2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152,153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 *739 S.Ct. 1284, 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Booth v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152, 153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 S.Ct. 1284 , 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). 2002Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 351 , 787 A.2d 152,153 (2001); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992); Booth v. State, 306 Md. 172, 226-27 , 507 A.2d 1098, 1126 (1986)(Eldridge, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), cert. granted, in part, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), and vacated, in part, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987); Littreal v. Redwine, 252 Md. 662, 668 , 250 A.2d 894, 897 (1969); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 179 , 246 A.2d 608, 620 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 948 , 89 *739 S.Ct. 1284, 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| The People v. Myers green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Matthews v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Commonwealth v. Greene green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Martinez-Gutierrez v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Foster green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Douglas v. Alabama green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Huyett v. Slick neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Ellison v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Clabaugh v. Byerly green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Smith v. State neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States v. Daniel King Brainard, United States of America v. Halton Q. Bittick, Jr. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Olsen green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Dyson v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Dyson v. Maryland green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12 v. Deacon green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Oregon v. Kennedy green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Howell v. State green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Kenneth Gene Grulkey v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Stewart v. Massachusetts green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| People v. Kor green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Furman v. Georgia green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.