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 1984–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armstead v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See also Armstead, 342 Md. at 69-70 , 673 A.2d at 236 (noting that the product rule is a probability principle that establishes that “the probability of two events occurring together is equal to the probability that event one will occur multiplied by the probability that event two will occur.”). 2002See also Armstead, 342 Md. at 69-70 , 673 A.2d at 236 (noting that the product rule is a probability principle that establishes that “the probability of two events occurring together is equal to the probability that event one will occur multiplied by the probability that event two will occur.”). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2002The product rule “states that the probability of the joint occurrence of a number of mutually independent events is equal to the product of the individual probabilities that each of the events will occur.” People v. Collins, 68 Cal.2d 319 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 438 P.2d 33, 36 (1968) (emphasis in original). 2002The product rule “states that the probability of the joint occurrence of a number of mutually independent events is equal to the product of the individual probabilities that each of the events will occur.” People v. Collins, 68 Cal.2d 319 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 438 P.2d 33, 36 (1968) (emphasis in original). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012This conclusion is similar to that reached in [ Wilson, supra, 370 Md. at 191 , 803 A.2d 1034 ], in which we recognized that the State’s expert, in applying the product rule, did not account for a genetic linkage between siblings, who may have died of SIDS, rather than been murdered by their father. 2012This conclusion is similar to that reached in [ Wilson, supra, 370 Md. at 191 , 803 A.2d 1034 ], in which we recognized that the State’s expert, in applying the product rule, did not account for a genetic linkage between siblings, who may have died of SIDS, rather than been murdered by their father. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Vandebogartgreen2 sentences1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas 1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cauthrongreen2 sentences1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas 1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 2 |
Hudson v. Michigangreen1 sentence2009Id. at 203-05, 906 A.2d 1054 . | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Mitchell, 363 Md. at 149, 767 A.2d 844 (“... the kind of awareness and reflection necessary to achieve the unity of purpose and design for a conspiracy is essentially the same as that required for deliberation and premeditation.”). 15 III. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Mitchell, 363 Md. at 149, 767 A.2d 844 (“... the kind of awareness and reflection necessary to achieve the unity of purpose and design for a conspiracy is essentially the same as that required for deliberation and premeditation.”). 15 III. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atengreen2 sentences2002See also State v. Aten, 130 Wash.2d 640 , 927 P.2d 210, 220 (1996). [2] We discuss the product rule in Section II. 2002See also State v. Aten, 130 Wash.2d 640 , 927 P.2d 210, 220 (1996). [2] We discuss the product rule in Section II. | 1 | 1 |
Dorsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2002In light of the role the statistics, and particularly the product rule, played in the expert’s testimony, we are unable “to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict.” Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659 , 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976). 2002In light of the role the statistics, and particularly the product rule, played in the expert’s testimony, we are unable “to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict.” Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659 , 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co.green2 sentences2001See Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 55 Md.App. 324, 338-41 , 462 A.2d 546 (1983)(if an administrative decision is solely the product of an error of law, it is not entitled to res judicata effect); Board of County Comm’rs v. Racine, 24 Md.App. 435, 452 , 332 A.2d 306 (1975)(same). 2001See Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 55 Md.App. 324, 338-41 , 462 A.2d 546 (1983)(if an administrative decision is solely the product of an error of law, it is not entitled to res judicata effect); Board of County Comm’rs v. Racine, 24 Md.App. 435, 452 , 332 A.2d 306 (1975)(same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boydgreen1 sentence1996Boyd, 331 N.W.2d at 483 (court explained that the potential prejudice against which the probative value of DNA profile evidence must be weighed, derives from the “real danger that the jury will use the evidence as a measure of the probability of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and that the evidence will thereby undermine the presumption of innocence, erode the values served by the reasonable doubt standard, and dehumanize our system of justice.” (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lanigangreen2 sentences1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas 1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas 1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Portergreen1 sentence1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 1 |
| Herndon v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Grenada Steel Industries, Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Company, Inc. And Sherwood-Selpac Corporationgreen1 sentence1985See Herndon v. *115 Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., 716 F.2d 1322, 1328-30 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2170 , 80 L.Ed.2d 553 (1984); Grenada Steel Industries v. Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883, 887-89 (5th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc.green2 sentences1985See Herndon v. *115 Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., 716 F.2d 1322, 1328-30 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2170 , 80 L.Ed.2d 553 (1984); Grenada Steel Industries v. Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883, 887-89 (5th Cir.1983). 1985See Herndon v. *115 Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., 716 F.2d 1322, 1328-30 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2170 , 80 L.Ed.2d 553 (1984); Grenada Steel Industries v. Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883, 887-89 (5th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas 1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson
green
2 sentences2017In Chesson I, we held that Frye-Reed applied to medical opinion testimony describing a causal link between mold exposure and certain health effects. 399 Md. at 328 , 923 A.2d 939 . 2017In Chesson I, we held that Frye-Reed applied to medical opinion testimony describing a causal link between mold exposure and certain health effects. 399 Md. at 328 , 923 A.2d 939 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Young v. United States
green
1 sentence2013Young, 63 A.3d at 1055-56 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Savage
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 203-05, 906 A.2d 1054 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Clemons v. State
green
2 sentences2009In Clemons v. State, 392 Md. 339 , 896 A.2d 1059 (2006), we discussed the procedural parameters of Frye-Reed and our preference that a trial judge hold a hearing prior to trial and outside the presence of the jury, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony: Judges have discretion to defer a pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine and ordinarily do so where the issue can be better developed or achieve a better context based on what occurs at trial. 2009In Clemons v. State, 392 Md. 339 , 896 A.2d 1059 (2006), we discussed the procedural parameters of Frye-Reed and our preference that a trial judge hold a hearing prior to trial and outside the presence of the jury, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony: Judges have discretion to defer a pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine and ordinarily do so where the issue can be better developed or achieve a better context based on what occurs at trial. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Watts v. State
green
1 sentence2005See Armstead, 342 Md. at 69-70 , 673 A.2d at 236 ; Williams, 574 N.W.2d at 297 ; Curnin, 565 N.E.2d at 448 ; Watts, 733 So.2d at 224-25 ; Vandebogart, 616 A.2d at 488 ; Cauthron, 846 P.2d at 513 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Commonwealth v. Curnin
green
1 sentence2005See Armstead, 342 Md. at 69-70 , 673 A.2d at 236 ; Williams, 574 N.W.2d at 297 ; Curnin, 565 N.E.2d at 448 ; Watts, 733 So.2d at 224-25 ; Vandebogart, 616 A.2d at 488 ; Cauthron, 846 P.2d at 513 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2005See Armstead, 342 Md. at 69-70 , 673 A.2d at 236 ; Williams, 574 N.W.2d at 297 ; Curnin, 565 N.E.2d at 448 ; Watts, 733 So.2d at 224-25 ; Vandebogart, 616 A.2d at 488 ; Cauthron, 846 P.2d at 513 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004A plaintiff who attaches a brush to that drill and in attempting to clean his teeth suffers injury to his mouth from the high speed of the brush will lose because his misuse is the sole cause of his misfortune, and the defect in the drill is not in any way related to the harm. *662 Ellsworth, 303 Md. at 596 , 495 A.2d 348 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). 2004A plaintiff who attaches a brush to that drill and in attempting to clean his teeth suffers injury to his mouth from the high speed of the brush will lose because his misuse is the sole cause of his misfortune, and the defect in the drill is not in any way related to the harm. *662 Ellsworth, 303 Md. at 596 , 495 A.2d 348 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance (In re Celotex Corp.)
green
1 sentence2002This ruling expressly relied upon Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance Company (In re Celotex Corp.), 149 B.R. 997 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1993), in which the Bankruptcy Court held that the products hazard exclusion in the liability policies in question deleted from coverage the insured’s negligent failure to warn of the inherently dangerous properties of asbestos. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2002We shall hold that because the evidence did not satisfy the test we adopted in Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), which guides the admissibility of expert testimony in Maryland, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. 2002We shall hold that because the evidence did not satisfy the test we adopted in Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), which guides the admissibility of expert testimony in Maryland, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Racine
green
2 sentences2001See Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 55 Md.App. 324, 338-41 , 462 A.2d 546 (1983)(if an administrative decision is solely the product of an error of law, it is not entitled to res judicata effect); Board of County Comm’rs v. Racine, 24 Md.App. 435, 452 , 332 A.2d 306 (1975)(same). 2001See Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 55 Md.App. 324, 338-41 , 462 A.2d 546 (1983)(if an administrative decision is solely the product of an error of law, it is not entitled to res judicata effect); Board of County Comm’rs v. Racine, 24 Md.App. 435, 452 , 332 A.2d 306 (1975)(same). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Barney
green
1 sentence1996But see Allan Sincox, Marijane Hemza—Placek, “Challenging the Admissibility of DNA Testing,” 83 Illinois Bar Journal, 170 April 1995, indicating that the LanderBudowle reconciliation has by no means eliminated or resolved the issue. 7 Thus, controversy remains as to whether the results obtained by use of the product rule are generally accepted, see State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1188-89 (1993); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 , 846 P.2d 502, 514 (1993); Barney, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 744 ; United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 640 (D.C.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mas | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Higgs v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1996Freund & Wilson, supra, at 62 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Moon green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.