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.
19 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Faulknergreen2 sentences2016This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.” 314 Md. 630, 635 , 552 A.2d 896 (1989) (internal citations omitted). 2016This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.” 314 Md. 630, 635 , 552 A.2d 896 (1989) (internal citations omitted). | 4 | 11 |
Cousar v. Stategreen1 sentence2026“This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion[,]” id. at 635, “requir[ing] . . . a Rule 5-403 balancing” because, “[t]o some degree, all evidence admitted under Maryland Rule 5-404(b) is prejudicial.” Cousar v. State, 198 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Conyers v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Id. (citations omitted); see also Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550-51 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997). 1998Id. (citations omitted); see also Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550-51 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Stategreen2 sentences1994The reference to the Ross exceptions is to those set forth in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669-670 , 350 A.2d 680, 684 (1976). 1994The reference to the Ross exceptions is to those set forth in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669-670 , 350 A.2d 680, 684 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Stategreen2 sentences1994This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.’ ” Terry, supra, 332 Md. at 335, 631 A.2d 424 (quoting Faulkner, supra, 314 Md. at 634-35 , 552 A.2d 896 ). 1994This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.’ ” Terry, supra, 332 Md. at 335, 631 A.2d 424 (quoting Faulkner, supra, 314 Md. at 634-35 , 552 A.2d 896 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences2011Id.; Moore, 73 Md.App. at 44-45 , 533 A.2d at 5 . 2011Id.; Moore, 73 Md.App. at 44-45 , 533 A.2d at 5 . | 5 | 1989–2011 |
Snyder v. State
green
2 sentences2016Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580, 603-04 , 762 A.2d 125 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630, 634-35 , 552 A.2d 896 (1989)). 2016Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580, 603-04 , 762 A.2d 125 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630, 634-35 , 552 A.2d 896 (1989)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Similarly, in assessing whether there is a reasonable basis for invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the trial judge, “in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Richardson v. State, 285 Md. 261, 266-67 , 401 A.2d 1021 (1979) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951)). 2016Similarly, in assessing whether there is a reasonable basis for invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the trial judge, “in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Richardson v. State, 285 Md. 261, 266-67 , 401 A.2d 1021 (1979) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Richardson v. State
green
2 sentences2016Similarly, in assessing whether there is a reasonable basis for invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the trial judge, “in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Richardson v. State, 285 Md. 261, 266-67 , 401 A.2d 1021 (1979) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951)). 2016Similarly, in assessing whether there is a reasonable basis for invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the trial judge, “in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Richardson v. State, 285 Md. 261, 266-67 , 401 A.2d 1021 (1979) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Streater v. State
green
2 sentences2004This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.’ (Citations omitted).” Streater v. State, 352 Md. 800, 807 , 724 A.2d 111 (1999) (citations omitted). 2004This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.’ (Citations omitted).” Streater v. State, 352 Md. 800, 807 , 724 A.2d 111 (1999) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Solomon v. State
green
2 sentences2002This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion, (citations omitted). 101 Md.App. at 339 , 646 A.2d 1064 . 2002This segment of the analysis implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion, (citations omitted). 101 Md.App. at 339 , 646 A.2d 1064 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.