27 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1868–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Before the General Assembly enacted CP § 8-401, individuals seeking coram nobis relief who pled guilty and had not applied for leave to appeal after being advised of the right to do so were required to rebut the presumption of waiver of the right to challenge the conviction in a coram nobis proceeding and to demonstrate special circumstances excusing the failure to apply for leave to appeal. *636 See Holmes, 401 Md. at 445-46 , 932 A.2d at 708 . 2015Before the General Assembly enacted CP § 8-401, individuals seeking coram nobis relief who pled guilty and had not applied for leave to appeal after being advised of the right to do so were required to rebut the presumption of waiver of the right to challenge the conviction in a coram nobis proceeding and to demonstrate special circumstances excusing the failure to apply for leave to appeal. *636 See Holmes, 401 Md. at 445-46 , 932 A.2d at 708 . | 4 | 6 |
Curtis v. Stategreen2 sentences2007When this Court confronted the issues raised, the majority did not address whether the waiver provisions applied when an application for leave to appeal a conviction was not filed, but instead, applied the provisions and held that McElroy had not rebutted the presumption of waiver because, unlike what was proffered to the court by the petitioner in Curtis, 284 Md. at 132 , 395 A.2d at 464 , McElroy made no effort to rebut the presumption that he waived the claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered by failing to raise that issue in an application for leave to appeal 2007When this Court confronted the issues raised, the majority did not address whether the waiver provisions applied when an application for leave to appeal a conviction was not filed, but instead, applied the provisions and held that McElroy had not rebutted the presumption of waiver because, unlike what was proffered to the court by the petitioner in Curtis, 284 Md. at 132 , 395 A.2d at 464 , McElroy made no effort to rebut the presumption that he waived the claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered by failing to raise that issue in an application for leave to appeal | 2 | 3 |
Oliveira v. Sugarmangreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Oliveira v. Sugarman, 451 Md. 208, 246 (2017) (stating that the petitioners’ “claims were properly dismissed by the Circuit Court for failure to overcome the business judgment rule presumption”). 2023See, e.g., Oliveira, 451 Md. at 246 (stating that the petitioners’ “claims were properly dismissed by the Circuit Court for failure to overcome the business judgment rule presumption”). | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Compare Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429, 445-46 , 932 A.2d 698 (2007) (The failure to file an application for leave to appeal creates a presumption of waiver that can be rebutted by a showing of "special circumstances” excusing the failure to file an application for leave to appeal.) with Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174, 188 , 77 A.3d 1030 (2013) (A defendant's failure to anticipate the Padilla decision is not a "special circumstance” for the purposes of Holmes.). 2014Compare Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429, 445-46 , 932 A.2d 698 (2007) (The failure to file an application for leave to appeal creates a presumption of waiver that can be rebutted by a showing of "special circumstances” excusing the failure to file an application for leave to appeal.) with Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174, 188 , 77 A.3d 1030 (2013) (A defendant's failure to anticipate the Padilla decision is not a "special circumstance” for the purposes of Holmes.). | 2 | 2 |
McElroy v. Stategreen2 sentences2012(Footnotes and citations omitted.) McElroy v. State, 329 Md. 136, 140-42 , 617 A.2d 1068, 1070-71 (1993). 11 We need not pass judgment here, however, on whether Grandison’s jury selection claim implicates a fundamental right, as his failure to raise the claim in any number of prior proceedings constituted a knowing, intelligent waiver. 2012(Footnotes and citations omitted.) McElroy v. State, 329 Md. 136, 140-42 , 617 A.2d 1068, 1070-71 (1993). 11 We need not pass judgment here, however, on whether Grandison’s jury selection claim implicates a fundamental right, as his failure to raise the claim in any number of prior proceedings constituted a knowing, intelligent waiver. | 2 | 2 |
Weaver v. Massachusettsgreen1 sentence2026Had the knowing and voluntary standard applied, Mr. Robb, on this record, has not rebutted the presumption that his waiver of trial rights was not knowing and voluntary under CP § 7-106(b)(1)(i)(3) because he failed to perfect a direct appeal. 24 v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 299-303 (2017); Ramirez, 464 Md. at 541 , 573 & n.11; Newton v. State, 455 Md. 341, 356-57 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Newton v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Had the knowing and voluntary standard applied, Mr. Robb, on this record, has not rebutted the presumption that his waiver of trial rights was not knowing and voluntary under CP § 7-106(b)(1)(i)(3) because he failed to perfect a direct appeal. 24 v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 299-303 (2017); Ramirez, 464 Md. at 541 , 573 & n.11; Newton v. State, 455 Md. 341, 356-57 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Meyers v. Columbia Hca Healthcare Corporationgreen1 sentence2011Meyers v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 341 F.3d 461, 469 (6th Cir.2003). 19 Dr. Freilich’s other primary case, Ritten , is readily distinguishable as well. | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio DUARTE-HIGAREDA, Defendant-Appellantgreen2 sentences2010In United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2002), the appellant argued that there was a defect in the trial court's waiver colloquy. [8] The court acknowledged that "adherence to the dictates of Rule 23(a) creates the presumption that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" and there was no evidence in the record that "Bishop suffered from `a special disadvantage or disability bearing upon [his] understanding of the jury waiver.'" Id. at 1113-14 (quoting United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1997)). 2010In United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2002), the appellant argued that there was a defect in the trial court’s waiver colloquy. 8 The court acknowledged that “adherence to the dictates of Rule 23(a) creates the presumption that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” and there was no evidence in the record that “Bishop suffered from ‘a special disadvantage or disability bearing upon [his] understanding of the jury waiver.’ ” Id. at 1113-14 (quoting United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence2026Had the knowing and voluntary standard applied, Mr. Robb, on this record, has not rebutted the presumption that his waiver of trial rights was not knowing and voluntary under CP § 7-106(b)(1)(i)(3) because he failed to perfect a direct appeal. 24 v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 299-303 (2017); Ramirez, 464 Md. at 541 , 573 & n.11; Newton v. State, 455 Md. 341, 356-57 (2017). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Havilah Real Property Services, LLC v. Early
green
1 sentence2018App. 613 , 630-31, 88 A.3d 875 , 885-86 (2014) (affirming the holding in Needle that survival of motions for summary judgment and judgment at trial creates a presumption of a claim having substantial justification). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Clark v. Columbia/HCA Information Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Clark held that to overcome the presumption of immunity, the plaintiff must present evidence capable of showing “by a preponderance of the evidence that the [professional review action] was not based on a reasonable belief that it was in furtherance of quality health care.” Clark, 25 P.3d at 222 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Abrams v. State
green
2 sentences2011Instead, the trial judge must either (1) explain to the defendant on the record the nature of the charge and the elements of the crime, or (2) obtain on the record a representation by defense counsel that the defendant has been "properly informed of the nature and elements of the charge to which he [or she] is pleading guilty." Abrams, 176 Md.App. at 622-23 , 933 A.2d at 900 . 2011Instead, the trial judge must either (1) explain to the defendant on the record the nature of the charge and the elements of the crime, or (2) obtain on the record a representation by defense counsel that the defendant has been "properly informed of the nature and elements of the charge to which he [or she] is pleading guilty." Abrams, 176 Md.App. at 622-23 , 933 A.2d at 900 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Montejo v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2010The Supreme Court rejected Montejo’s contention that, under Michigan v. Jackson, there was a presumption that his waiver of counsel was invalid. 129 S.Ct. at 2091 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Jay R. Bishop, United States of America v. Gene R. Cardenaz
green
2 sentences2010In United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2002), the appellant argued that there was a defect in the trial court’s waiver colloquy. 8 The court acknowledged that “adherence to the dictates of Rule 23(a) creates the presumption that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” and there was no evidence in the record that “Bishop suffered from ‘a special disadvantage or disability bearing upon [his] understanding of the jury waiver.’ ” Id. at 1113-14 (quoting United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1997)). 2010In United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2002), the appellant argued that there was a defect in the trial court’s waiver colloquy. 8 The court acknowledged that “adherence to the dictates of Rule 23(a) creates the presumption that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” and there was no evidence in the record that “Bishop suffered from ‘a special disadvantage or disability bearing upon [his] understanding of the jury waiver.’ ” Id. at 1113-14 (quoting United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1997)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Creighton v. State
green
2 sentences2008For example, in Creighton v. State, 87 Md.App. 736 , 591 A.2d 561 (1991), a petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of waiver by showing that he intended to appeal and had directed his attorney to appeal. 2008For example, in Creighton v. State, 87 Md.App. 736 , 591 A.2d 561 (1991), a petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of waiver by showing that he intended to appeal and had directed his attorney to appeal. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences2007He also asserts that because his guilty plea was not entered intelligently and knowingly, he could not have intelligently and knowingly waived his right to file for leave to appeal, citing Parker v. State, 160 Md.App. 672 , 866 A.2d 885 (2005), for support. 2007He also asserts that because his guilty plea was not entered intelligently and knowingly, he could not have intelligently and knowingly waived his right to file for leave to appeal, citing Parker v. State, 160 Md.App. 672 , 866 A.2d 885 (2005), for support. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Larry L. Horton
green
1 sentence2006Responding to the defendant’s Sixth Amendment conflict of interest challenge, the Seventh Circuit held: “We will not indulge the presumption that a defense attorney who is being considered for a position as United States Attorney is unable to represent a defendant in federal court to the best of his ability and with the defendant’s best interests in mind.” Id. at 1419 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mahoney v. Byers
green
2 sentences1999Mahoney, 187 Md. at 88 , 48 A.2d at 604 . 1999Mahoney, 187 Md. at 88 , 48 A.2d at 604 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Curtis v. State
green
1 sentence1978App. 459 (1977), where we found that § 645A (c) establishes “a presumption of waiver from mere silence.” Curtis, supra, at 469 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Roth
green
1 sentence1973The witness's peril, though not so immediate, seems hardly less dire. [9] See discussion in State v. Roth, 166 N.W.2d 564 (S.D. 1969). [10] Regretfully, no guidance is provided as to whether such a presumption is rebuttable or is conclusive; or, if rebuttable, whether the defendant's story alone is enough to rebut the presumption of waiver and switch the burden to the State of proving effective waiver. [11] White, Federal Habeas Corpus: The Impact of the Failure to Assert a Constitutional Claim at Trial, 58 Va. L. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Sanders v. United States
green
1 sentence1967In so concluding, we find apposite that principle recited by the Supreme Court in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 , at page 18, namely that in dealing with successive applications for post conviction relief, courts need not “tolerate needless piecemeal litigation, or to entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to vex, harass, or delay.” 5 Application denied. 1 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Fay v. Noia
red
1 sentence1965The questions before us are whether, under the Maryland Rules and law, the appellants must be deemed to have waived any objection to the method of selection of the *485 grand jury which indicted them because of their failure to raise the objection in the proceedings in the court below; and, if so, whether the presumption of the waiver constitutes a deprivation of due process of law, under Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963) and other decisions of the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
McGonigal v. Plummer
green
1 sentence1872Plummer, 30 Md., 422 , the same principles are stated. | 1 | 1872–1872 |
Magruder v. Peter
green
1 sentence1868Magruder v. Peter, 11 G. & J. 217 . | 1 | 1868–1868 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.