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 1989–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220 (2002) (“In reviewing the judgment on a motion to dismiss for violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, we make our own independent constitutional analysis.” (Citations omitted)). 2014See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220 , 792 A.2d 1160, 1165 (2002) (“In reviewing the judgment on a motion to dismiss for violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, we make our own independent constitutional analysis.” (Citations omitted)). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Baileygreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Bailey v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Chransgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2006See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001)(stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723 , *482 736, 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Carroll v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Crosby v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). 2007See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Cartnail v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol 2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol | 1 | 2 |
Rios v. Stategreen1 sentence2026An order that determines not to enforce particular terms “in an established plea agreement or miscellaneous bargain meets all four elements of the collateral order doctrine.” Rios, 186 Md. App. at 364 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George A. Vallejogreen1 sentence2026See United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1162 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that, on appellate review of a motion to dismiss for violation of double jeopardy, the reviewing court “review[s] the district court’s factual finding[s] for clear error” and that the district court’s “determination of the prosecutor’s intent is a finding of fact[]”); cf. Portillo Funes v. State, 469 Md. 438, 462 (2020) (noting that, on appellate review of a motion to suppress, this Court “accepts the suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, unless clearly erroneous[]”). | 1 | 1 |
Portillo Funes v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1162 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that, on appellate review of a motion to dismiss for violation of double jeopardy, the reviewing court “review[s] the district court’s factual finding[s] for clear error” and that the district court’s “determination of the prosecutor’s intent is a finding of fact[]”); cf. Portillo Funes v. State, 469 Md. 438, 462 (2020) (noting that, on appellate review of a motion to suppress, this Court “accepts the suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, unless clearly erroneous[]”). | 1 | 1 |
Heavenly Days Crematorium, LLC v. Harris, Smariga & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2026Under the motion to dismiss standard, this Court “is to assume the truth of the factual allegations of the [well-pleaded] complaint and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Heavenly Days Crematorium, LLC v. Harris, Smariga & Assocs., Inc., 433 Md. 558, 568 (2013). 2026Under the motion to dismiss standard, this Court “is to assume the truth of the factual allegations of the [well-pleaded] complaint and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Heavenly Days Crematorium, LLC v. Harris, Smariga & Assocs., Inc., 433 Md. 558, 568 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Abney v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See In re M.P., 487 Md. at 69 (citing Stephens, 420 Md. at 505 n.4 (in turn citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 661 (1977))) (explaining that review of a motion to dismiss for violation of double jeopardy rights was permitted under the collateral order doctrine because the issue invoked review of whether the defendant could be put to trial twice rather than the ultimate issue of guilt). | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See In re M.P., 487 Md. at 69 (citing Stephens, 420 Md. at 505 n.4 (in turn citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 661 (1977))) (explaining that review of a motion to dismiss for violation of double jeopardy rights was permitted under the collateral order doctrine because the issue invoked review of whether the defendant could be put to trial twice rather than the ultimate issue of guilt). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: M.P.green1 sentence2026See In re M.P., 487 Md. at 69 (citing Stephens, 420 Md. at 505 n.4 (in turn citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 661 (1977))) (explaining that review of a motion to dismiss for violation of double jeopardy rights was permitted under the collateral order doctrine because the issue invoked review of whether the defendant could be put to trial twice rather than the ultimate issue of guilt). | 1 | 1 |
Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3green2 sentences2009Id. at 771. 2009Id. at 771. | 1 | 1 |
Borgen v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Borgen v. State, 58 Md.App. 61, 75, 472 A.2d 114 (1984). 1999Borgen v. State, 58 Md.App. 61, 75, 472 A.2d 114 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Falk v. Stienbackgreen2 sentences1989See Falk v. Stienback, 30 Wash.2d 62, 73-74 , 190 P.2d 747, 754 (1948). 1989See Falk v. Stienback, 30 Wash.2d 62, 73-74 , 190 P.2d 747, 754 (1948). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2016In State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617, 620-29 , 810 A.2d 964 (2002), the Court of Appeals reviewed two instances where the trial court, in the context of a pretrial motions hearing long before jeopardy attached, granted a motion to dismiss by hearing evidence beyond the allegations of the charging document, and it found that the evidence was not sufficient to constitute a violation of the statutes relied upon by the State. 2016In State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617, 620-29 , 810 A.2d 964 (2002), the Court of Appeals reviewed two instances where the trial court, in the context of a pretrial motions hearing long before jeopardy attached, granted a motion to dismiss by hearing evidence beyond the allegations of the charging document, and it found that the evidence was not sufficient to constitute a violation of the statutes relied upon by the State. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Howard v. State
green
1 sentence2020Howard v. State, 440 Md. 427 , 446–47 (2014). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. Danielczyk
green
2 sentences2010The circuit court did not treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. 5 Because the parties do not *620 dispute that Tri-County’s charter was forfeited when it filed suit, we will regard that additional information as supplementary to the allegations in the complaint and shall “consider the relevant facts pled in the complaint, as so supplemented.” Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 105 , 928 A.2d 795 (2007) (citation omitted). 6 We therefore review the court’s ruling under the motion to dismiss standard. 2010The circuit court did not treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. 5 Because the parties do not *620 dispute that Tri-County’s charter was forfeited when it filed suit, we will regard that additional information as supplementary to the allegations in the complaint and shall “consider the relevant facts pled in the complaint, as so supplemented.” Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 105 , 928 A.2d 795 (2007) (citation omitted). 6 We therefore review the court’s ruling under the motion to dismiss standard. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sard v. Hardy
green
1 sentence2005They argued in their motion that, under this Court’s *611 decision in Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 482 , 379 A.2d 1014 (1977), expert medical testimony was required in order to prove a claim based on lack of informed consent and that, without such a witness, Frew could not establish a prima facie case. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Winder v. State
green
2 sentences2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol 2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol 2004See Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211, 220-21 , 792 A.2d 1160 (2002) (reviewing de novo the judgment of the trial court on a motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001) (holding that whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in viol | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.