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.
27 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2019Conwell next excepts to Judge Schaeffer's conclusion that he violated Rule 1.5, which prohibits an attorney from making "an agreement for, charg[ing], or collect[ing] an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses[,]" with regard to the DeSerio matter, "for the reasons discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4." Judge Schaeffer's conclusion was based on her finding that, while "the retainer fee charged prior to the emergency hearing was not unreasonable, Respondent's fees became unreasonable after the hearing on August 13, 2014 when Respondent began filing improper and frivolous m 2019Conwell next excepts to Judge Schaeffer's conclusion that he violated Rule 1.5, which prohibits an attorney from making "an agreement for, charg[ing], or collect[ing] an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses[,]" with regard to the DeSerio matter, "for the reasons discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4." Judge Schaeffer's conclusion was based on her finding that, while "the retainer fee charged prior to the emergency hearing was not unreasonable, Respondent's fees became unreasonable after the hearing on August 13, 2014 when Respondent began filing improper and frivolous m | 2 | 2 |
Warnke v. Essexgreen2 sentences2007However, if the operator is not actually in a position of sudden peril, or, if the peril arises because of his own negligence, then the emergency rule is not applicable.” Id. at 186-87 , 141 A.2d at 729 (citations omitted). 2007However, if the operator is not actually in a position of sudden peril, or, if the peril arises because of his own negligence, then the emergency rule is not applicable.” Id. at 186-87 , 141 A.2d at 729 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Michigan v. Tylergreen2 sentences1978The Supreme Court has most recently applied the emergency doctrine to uphold a warrantless search to investigate the cause of a fire in Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), noting, "Our decisions have recognized that a warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant." Id. at 509 , 98 S.Ct. at 1950. 1978The Supreme Court has most recently applied the emergency doctrine to uphold a warrantless search to investigate the cause of a fire in Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), noting, "Our decisions have recognized that a warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant." Id. at 509 , 98 S.Ct. at 1950. | 1 | 2 |
Whitfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In Whitfield , the question was whether a prisoner questioned by correctional officers about the presence of a gun within the jail was subject to custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda , and whether an emergency exception to Miranda exists. 12 We noted that “[wjhile a few courts have been willing to interpret Mathis in this broad fashion that prison confinement equals custody, we find that it is unnecessary to do so here since under the general test to be utilized in deciding when one is in ‘custody,’ which we announce today, it is clear that Whitfield was ‘deprived of his freedom of 2008In Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 133 , 411 A.2d 415, 421 (1980) declined to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda, noting that "the United States Supreme Court itself has not placed any per se limitation on where and when Miranda safeguards should be applied.” The Supreme Court subsequently recognized an emergency exception in N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), implicitly overruling this portion of Whitfield . . | 1 | 1 |
Deville v. Stategreen2 sentences2008L.J. 883 , 935 & n. 174 (1997) ("[a]fter Mathis , numerous state and lower courts expressly held that not all incarceration constitutes Miranda custody and that `incarceration does not ipso facto render an interrogation custodial'"). [12] In Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 133 , 411 A.2d 415, 421 (1980) declined to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda, noting that "the United States Supreme Court itself has not placed any per se limitation on where and when Miranda safeguards should be applied." The Supreme Court subsequently recognized an emergency exception in N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U. 2008L.J. 883 , 935 & n. 174 (1997) ("[a]fter Mathis , numerous state and lower courts expressly held that not all incarceration constitutes Miranda custody and that `incarceration does not ipso facto render an interrogation custodial'"). [12] In Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 133 , 411 A.2d 415, 421 (1980) declined to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda, noting that "the United States Supreme Court itself has not placed any per se limitation on where and when Miranda safeguards should be applied." The Supreme Court subsequently recognized an emergency exception in N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Montgomery Countygreen2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co.green2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 1 |
Maryland State Fair & Agricultural Society, Inc. v. Leegreen2 sentences1999See id. at 387 , 348 A.2d 44 . 1999See id. at 387 , 348 A.2d 44 . | 1 | 1 |
| Stackhouse v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mincey v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Quarles
green
2 sentences2008In Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 133 , 411 A.2d 415, 421 (1980) declined to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda, noting that "the United States Supreme Court itself has not placed any per se limitation on where and when Miranda safeguards should be applied.” The Supreme Court subsequently recognized an emergency exception in N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), implicitly overruling this portion of Whitfield . . 2008In Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 133 , 411 A.2d 415, 421 (1980) declined to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda, noting that "the United States Supreme Court itself has not placed any per se limitation on where and when Miranda safeguards should be applied.” The Supreme Court subsequently recognized an emergency exception in N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), implicitly overruling this portion of Whitfield . . | 4 | 1984–2008 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2019Conwell next excepts to Judge Schaeffer's conclusion that he violated Rule 1.5, which prohibits an attorney from making "an agreement for, charg[ing], or collect[ing] an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses[,]" with regard to the DeSerio matter, "for the reasons discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4." Judge Schaeffer's conclusion was based on her finding that, while "the retainer fee charged prior to the emergency hearing was not unreasonable, Respondent's fees became unreasonable after the hearing on August 13, 2014 when Respondent began filing improper and frivolous m 2019Conwell next excepts to Judge Schaeffer's conclusion that he violated Rule 1.5, which prohibits an attorney from making "an agreement for, charg[ing], or collect[ing] an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses[,]" with regard to the DeSerio matter, "for the reasons discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4." Judge Schaeffer's conclusion was based on her finding that, while "the retainer fee charged prior to the emergency hearing was not unreasonable, Respondent's fees became unreasonable after the hearing on August 13, 2014 when Respondent began filing improper and frivolous m | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Moats v. Ashburn
green
2 sentences2007An ‘acts in emergency’ instruction is appropriate only where ‘[t]he jury could have determined ... whether in the light of the alternatives available to him, and the time available to him to recognize and evaluate those alternatives, [Rustin] made a choice that a reasonable, prudent person would make.’ Moats, 60 Md. 1995An “acts in emergency” instruction is appropriate only where “[t]he jury could have determined ... whether in the light of the alternatives available to him, and the time, available to him to recognize and evaluate those alternatives, [Rustin] made a choice that a reasonable, prudent person would make.” Moats, 60 Md.App. at 494 , 483 A.2d 791 (emphasis added). | 2 | 1995–2007 |
Lehmann v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 2 | 1960–2007 |
Malik v. Malik
green
2 sentences2005Id. 1996Id. at 523-24 , 638 A.2d 1184 . | 2 | 1996–2005 |
Baker v. Shettle
green
2 sentences1988They assert “that the Defendant in this case contributed to the events *674 which brought about the emergency and under such circumstances an emergency instruction is inappropriate.” The Court of Appeals discussed the “sudden emergency” instruction in Baker v. Shettle, 194 Md. 666 , 72 A.2d 30 (1950): It is held by the weight of authority, that if there is evidence in a case legally sufficient to show that an emergency existed, it becomes a question of fact for the jury. 1988They assert “that the Defendant in this case contributed to the events *674 which brought about the emergency and under such circumstances an emergency instruction is inappropriate.” The Court of Appeals discussed the “sudden emergency” instruction in Baker v. Shettle, 194 Md. 666 , 72 A.2d 30 (1950): It is held by the weight of authority, that if there is evidence in a case legally sufficient to show that an emergency existed, it becomes a question of fact for the jury. | 2 | 1965–1988 |
Lewis v. Murshid
green
2 sentences2016Courts must ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists over a case at all points of the litigation and may raise the issue, "sua sponte, at any time.” Murshid, 147 Md.App. at 202-03 , 807 A.2d 1170 (2002). 14 . 2016Courts must ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists over a case at all points of the litigation and may raise the issue, "sua sponte, at any time.” Murshid, 147 Md.App. at 202-03 , 807 A.2d 1170 (2002). 14 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dedo v. State
green
2 sentences2008Deville does not conflict with our decision in Dedo v. State, 343 Md. 2 , 680 A.2d 464 (1996), as Dedo pertains to whether home detention constitutes custody. 2008Deville does not conflict with our decision in Dedo v. State, 343 Md. 2 , 680 A.2d 464 (1996), as Dedo pertains to whether home detention constitutes custody. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Armstrong v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ryan v. Thurston
green
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ristaino v. Flannery
green
2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Teal v. Schissler
neutral
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harner v. Russell
green
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miller v. Reilly
green
2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Robertson v. State, Use, Meyer
green
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Braswell v. Burrus
green
1 sentence2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mudrick v. Weakley
neutral
2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ristaino v. Flannery
green
2 sentences2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 2007See Stevens v. Chandler Motor Co., 222 Md. 399 , 160 A.2d 772 (1960) (crossing center line); Mitchell v. Montgomery County, 88 Md.App. 542, 564 , 596 A.2d 93, 103 (1991) (pedestrian steps without warning in front of moving bus); Ristaino v. Flannery, 76 Md.App. 662 , 547 A.2d 1115 (1988) (vehicle operated within posted speed limit and otherwise in a safe manner inexplicably skids on wet road, crossing center line), vacated on other grounds, 317 Md. 452 , 564 A.2d 790 (1989); Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465 , 319 A.2d 553 (sudden and unanticipated brake failure), cert. denied, 272 Md. 746 (197 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mason v. Triplett
green
2 sentences2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md 2007Examples are: when a vehicle enters the roadway from an alley, see Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390 , 347 A.2d 834 (1975); when a child or a dog suddenly enters the roadway in front of the motorist, see Robertson v. State, u/o Meyer, 216 Md. 175 , 139 A.2d 715 (1958), and Harner v. Russell, 185 Md. 519 , 45 A.2d 273 (1946); when a vehicle crosses the center line or drives on the wrong side of the road, see Teal v. Schissler, 238 Md. 620 , 209 A.2d 244 (1965); Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A.2d 886 (1958); Mason v. Triplett, 217 Md. 433 , 141 A.2d 708 (1958); Warnke v. Essex, supra, 217 Md | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Dingle v. State
green
2 sentences2002The court also rejected two additional arguments advanced by the appellant: 1) that by denying him the right to attend the emergency hearing at which Pikulski and McDonald testified, the court denied him his right to be present at a "critical stage" of the proceedings so as to assist his counsel; and 2) that the holding in Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 , 759 A.2d 819 (2000), somehow mandated that the court grant the appellant a new trial under the circumstances. 2002The court also rejected two additional arguments advanced by the appellant: 1) that by denying him the right to attend the emergency hearing at which Pikulski and McDonald testified, the court denied him his right to be present at a "critical stage" of the proceedings so as to assist his counsel; and 2) that the holding in Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 , 759 A.2d 819 (2000), somehow mandated that the court grant the appellant a new trial under the circumstances. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McAvoy v. State
green
2 sentences2001McAvoy, 70 Md.App. at 667 , 523 A.2d 618 . 2001McAvoy, 70 Md.App. at 667 , 523 A.2d 618 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Accardi v. Accardi
green
1 sentence1999Hampshire, Inc. that the defense of assumption of risk is inapplicable if the actions of the defendant appear to create a situation that would “justify, if not compel the plaintiff to undergo the risk of being injured in order to warn *385 others and avert their harm.” Lee, 29 Md.App. at 388 , 848 A.2d 44 (quoting Scott v. John H. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Western & Southern Life Insurance v. Crown American Corp. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Oken v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Whitfield v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Vale v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Hardin green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Fellows v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Hillard v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Modesto green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Robertson v. Shell Oil Co. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Scott v. John H. Hampshire, Inc. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Burhans v. Burhans green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Williams v. Dawidowicz green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.