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.
17 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clayton v. Supreme Conclavegreen2 sentences2025Clayton v. Supreme Conclave, Improved Ord. of Heptasophs In Clayton v. Supreme Conclave, Improved Ord. of Heptasophs, 130 Md. 31 , 32- 33, 35, 37, 99 A. 949, 950-51 (1917), where the decedent was a member of a fraternal organization or “mutual order” and had the organization issue a certificate identifying two children, who had not been legally adopted by him, as beneficiaries of an endowment that he had paid into, this Court upheld the decedent’s designation of the beneficiaries on principles involving equitable adoption. 2025Clayton v. Supreme Conclave, Improved Ord. of Heptasophs In Clayton v. Supreme Conclave, Improved Ord. of Heptasophs, 130 Md. 31 , 32- 33, 35, 37, 99 A. 949, 950-51 (1917), where the decedent was a member of a fraternal organization or “mutual order” and had the organization issue a certificate identifying two children, who had not been legally adopted by him, as beneficiaries of an endowment that he had paid into, this Court upheld the decedent’s designation of the beneficiaries on principles involving equitable adoption. | 1 | 1 |
Norman v. Borisongreen2 sentences2019See generally Norman v. Borison , 418 Md. 630 , 652-60, 17 A.3d 697 (2011). 2019See generally Norman v. Borison , 418 Md. 630 , 652-60, 17 A.3d 697 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Lake Hospital System, Inc. v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'ngreen2 sentences2005Assn., 69 Ohio St.3d 521 , 634 N.E.2d 611, 615 (1994) (holding that “once a liquidating court establishes a definitive bar date, [the Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association] becomes statutorily obligated to observe the finality of that date,” and noting that “[w]ere we to hold otherwise, the specific filing deadline set forth in [the Ohio statute] would be rendered meaningless”); Whitehouse v. Rumford Prop. & Liab. 2005Assn., 69 Ohio St.3d 521 , 634 N.E.2d 611, 615 (1994) (holding that “once a liquidating court establishes a definitive bar date, [the Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association] becomes statutorily obligated to observe the finality of that date,” and noting that “[w]ere we to hold otherwise, the specific filing deadline set forth in [the Ohio statute] would be rendered meaningless”); Whitehouse v. Rumford Prop. & Liab. | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred1 sentence2004One of those attacks is that the testimony of the three experts failed the so-called Frye-Reed test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 *186 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), in that the deductive techniques used by the three experts were not shown to have met with “general acceptance within the scientific community.” The other two prongs of attack find their provenance in the definitive analysis of expert opinion testimony made by Chief Judge Murphy for this Court in Wood v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 134 Md.App. 512 , 760 A.2d 315 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Spencer v. Franksgreen1 sentence2002See id. at 81-84, 195 A. 306 . *229 We look to Rule 2-535(b) as the definitive standard for exercising revisory power over enrolled judgments in civil cases. | 1 | 1 |
Eliason v. Commissioner of Personnelgreen2 sentences2002See Eliason v. Comm’r of Pers., 230 Md. 56, 59 , 185 A.2d 390 (1962). 2002See Eliason v. Comm’r of Pers., 230 Md. 56, 59 , 185 A.2d 390 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ali v. State
neutral
2 sentences2011“Hearsay may be defined as an out-of-court assertion offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted, *32 resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.” Ali v. State, 67 Md.App. 339, 343 , 507 A.2d 648 (1986). [The detective’s] testimony concerning his conversation with Debbie from Delaware was not offered in court for the truth of what Debbie, the out-of-court asserter, said; rather, it was offered as evidence of the fact that the call was made. 2011“Hearsay may be defined as an out-of-court assertion offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted, *32 resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.” Ali v. State, 67 Md.App. 339, 343 , 507 A.2d 648 (1986). [The detective’s] testimony concerning his conversation with Debbie from Delaware was not offered in court for the truth of what Debbie, the out-of-court asserter, said; rather, it was offered as evidence of the fact that the call was made. | 2 | 2008–2011 |
State v. Moulden
green
2 sentences2024Those three opinions are Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 , 427 A.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666 , 441 A.2d 699 (1982); and Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). 2024Those three opinions are Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 , 427 A.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666 , 441 A.2d 699 (1982); and Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ward v. State
green
1 sentence2024Those three opinions are Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 , 427 A.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666 , 441 A.2d 699 (1982); and Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Curley v. State
green
2 sentences2024Those three opinions are Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 , 427 A.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666 , 441 A.2d 699 (1982); and Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). 2024Those three opinions are Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 , 427 A.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666 , 441 A.2d 699 (1982); and Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2020In the years following Nix v. Williams, the Court of Appeals applied the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine twice, now authoritatively binding as the law of the land, in Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 654-56 , 612 A.2d 258 (1992) and the definitive analysis by Judge Raker in Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 409-428 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002). 2020In the years following Nix v. Williams, the Court of Appeals applied the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine twice, now authoritatively binding as the law of the land, in Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 654-56 , 612 A.2d 258 (1992) and the definitive analysis by Judge Raker in Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 409-428 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Oken v. State
green
2 sentences2020In the years following Nix v. Williams, the Court of Appeals applied the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine twice, now authoritatively binding as the law of the land, in Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 654-56 , 612 A.2d 258 (1992) and the definitive analysis by Judge Raker in Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 409-428 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002). 2020In the years following Nix v. Williams, the Court of Appeals applied the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine twice, now authoritatively binding as the law of the land, in Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 654-56 , 612 A.2d 258 (1992) and the definitive analysis by Judge Raker in Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 409-428 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Derry v. State
green
2 sentences2014The definitive analysis (and the only truly probing examination) of the required subject matter for a State appeal pursuant to § 12-302(c)(3) is the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Derry v. State, 358 Md. 325 , 748 A.2d 478 (2000). 2014The definitive analysis (and the only truly probing examination) of the required subject matter for a State appeal pursuant to § 12-302(c)(3) is the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Derry v. State, 358 Md. 325 , 748 A.2d 478 (2000). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Agurs v. State
green
2 sentences2012Agurs, 415 Md. at 86 , 998 A.2d 868 (emphasis supplied). 2012Agurs, 415 Md. at 86 , 998 A.2d 868 (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jackson v. State
green
2 sentences2011The definitive analysis in Maryland of the crime of receiving stolen goods remains that done for this Court by Judge Orth in Jackson v. State, 10 Md.App. 337 , 270 A.2d 322 (1970), cert. denied, 260 Md. 721 (1971). 2011The definitive analysis in Maryland of the crime of receiving stolen goods remains that done for this Court by Judge Orth in Jackson v. State, 10 Md.App. 337 , 270 A.2d 322 (1970), cert. denied, 260 Md. 721 (1971). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Garner v. State
green
2 sentences2011Garner, 183 Md.App. at 140 , 960 A.2d 649 (emphasis added.) Citing this Court’s decision in Best, 71 Md.App. at 432 , 526 A.2d 75 , the Garner Court stated, id. at 142 , 960 A.2d 649 : Judge Karwacki’s explanation in Best of why the content of the incoming call was non-hearsay remains the definitive analysis. 2011Garner, 183 Md.App. at 140 , 960 A.2d 649 (emphasis added.) Citing this Court’s decision in Best, 71 Md.App. at 432 , 526 A.2d 75 , the Garner Court stated, id. at 142 , 960 A.2d 649 : Judge Karwacki’s explanation in Best of why the content of the incoming call was non-hearsay remains the definitive analysis. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Best v. State
green
2 sentences2011Garner, 183 Md.App. at 140 , 960 A.2d 649 (emphasis added.) Citing this Court’s decision in Best, 71 Md.App. at 432 , 526 A.2d 75 , the Garner Court stated, id. at 142 , 960 A.2d 649 : Judge Karwacki’s explanation in Best of why the content of the incoming call was non-hearsay remains the definitive analysis. 2011Garner, 183 Md.App. at 140 , 960 A.2d 649 (emphasis added.) Citing this Court’s decision in Best, 71 Md.App. at 432 , 526 A.2d 75 , the Garner Court stated, id. at 142 , 960 A.2d 649 : Judge Karwacki’s explanation in Best of why the content of the incoming call was non-hearsay remains the definitive analysis. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Simard v. White
green
2 sentences2008In White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229, 244-47 , 831 A.2d 517 (2003), aff'd, 383 Md. 257 , 859 A.2d 168 (2004), Judge Sally Adkins engaged in a definitive analysis for this Court of the binding contractual impact of the advertisement of sale in the context of court-ordered foreclosure sales. 2008In White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229, 244-47 , 831 A.2d 517 (2003), aff'd, 383 Md. 257 , 859 A.2d 168 (2004), Judge Sally Adkins engaged in a definitive analysis for this Court of the binding contractual impact of the advertisement of sale in the context of court-ordered foreclosure sales. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
White v. Simard
green
2 sentences2008In White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229, 244-47 , 831 A.2d 517 (2003), aff'd, 383 Md. 257 , 859 A.2d 168 (2004), Judge Sally Adkins engaged in a definitive analysis for this Court of the binding contractual impact of the advertisement of sale in the context of court-ordered foreclosure sales. 2008In White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229, 244-47 , 831 A.2d 517 (2003), aff'd, 383 Md. 257 , 859 A.2d 168 (2004), Judge Sally Adkins engaged in a definitive analysis for this Court of the binding contractual impact of the advertisement of sale in the context of court-ordered foreclosure sales. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re the Marriage of Rayman
green
2 sentences2005For example, the case of In re Marriage of Rayman, 273 Kan. 996 , 47 P.3d 413 (2002), discusses the. 2005For example, the case of In re Marriage of Rayman, 273 Kan. 996 , 47 P.3d 413 (2002), discusses the. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wood v. Toyota Motor Corp.
green
2 sentences2004One of those attacks is that the testimony of the three experts failed the so-called Frye-Reed test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 *186 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), in that the deductive techniques used by the three experts were not shown to have met with “general acceptance within the scientific community.” The other two prongs of attack find their provenance in the definitive analysis of expert opinion testimony made by Chief Judge Murphy for this Court in Wood v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 134 Md.App. 512 , 760 A.2d 315 (2000). 2004One of those attacks is that the testimony of the three experts failed the so-called Frye-Reed test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 *186 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), in that the deductive techniques used by the three experts were not shown to have met with “general acceptance within the scientific community.” The other two prongs of attack find their provenance in the definitive analysis of expert opinion testimony made by Chief Judge Murphy for this Court in Wood v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 134 Md.App. 512 , 760 A.2d 315 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
cluster 764386
green
1 sentence2004The definitive analysis of the use of differential diagnosis by a physician was made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir.1999). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2004One of those attacks is that the testimony of the three experts failed the so-called Frye-Reed test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 *186 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), in that the deductive techniques used by the three experts were not shown to have met with “general acceptance within the scientific community.” The other two prongs of attack find their provenance in the definitive analysis of expert opinion testimony made by Chief Judge Murphy for this Court in Wood v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 134 Md.App. 512 , 760 A.2d 315 (2000). 2004One of those attacks is that the testimony of the three experts failed the so-called Frye-Reed test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 *186 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), in that the deductive techniques used by the three experts were not shown to have met with “general acceptance within the scientific community.” The other two prongs of attack find their provenance in the definitive analysis of expert opinion testimony made by Chief Judge Murphy for this Court in Wood v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 134 Md.App. 512 , 760 A.2d 315 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Cross v. State
green
2 sentences1994Perhaps the definitive analysis of the exception was that made by Judge Digges in Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 475-476 , 386 A.2d 757 (1978): As a general rule, in order to gain the admission of evidence of other criminal acts under the common scheme or plan exception it is necessary that the crimes, including the crime charged, so relate to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. 1994Perhaps the definitive analysis of the exception was that made by Judge Digges in Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 475-476 , 386 A.2d 757 (1978): As a general rule, in order to gain the admission of evidence of other criminal acts under the common scheme or plan exception it is necessary that the crimes, including the crime charged, so relate to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ross v. State
green
2 sentences1979The Court of Appeals, in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976), supplied a definitive analysis of the evidentiary rule pertaining to the use of prior offenses or prior convictions against an accused who is on trial for different or unrelated acts. 1979The Court of Appeals, in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664 , 350 A. 2d 680 (1976), supplied a definitive analysis of the evidentiary rule pertaining to the use of prior offenses or prior convictions against an accused who is on trial for different or unrelated acts. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Saale v. Alton Brick Company
green
1 sentence1978Saale v. Alton Brick Co., 508 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. App. 1974). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.