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.
15 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2008One of the benefits of the lodestar approach is that it allows the court to make appropriate findings, so that the parties and any reviewing appellate court can follow the reasoning and test the validity of the findings.” Friolo I, 373 Md. at 529 , 819 A.2d at 371 . 2008One of the benefits of the lodestar approach is that it allows the court to make appropriate findings, so that the parties and any reviewing appellate court can follow the reasoning and test the validity of the findings.” Friolo I, 373 Md. at 529 , 819 A.2d at 371 . | 1 | 3 |
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2014We agreed with that court’s conclusion that, in direct conflict with, and in apparent disregard of, our instructions in Friólo I, the trial court failed to provide an explanation of how the lodestar factors affected the amount of the award, and that, regrettably, the case needed to be remanded again so that the court could apply the lodestar factors, using the analysis set forth in Friólo I, “so that the parties and any reviewing appellate court can follow the reasoning and test the validity of the findings.” Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443, 454-55 , 942 A.2d 1242, 1248-19 (2008). 2014We agreed with that court’s conclusion that, in direct conflict with, and in apparent disregard of, our instructions in Friólo I, the trial court failed to provide an explanation of how the lodestar factors affected the amount of the award, and that, regrettably, the case needed to be remanded again so that the court could apply the lodestar factors, using the analysis set forth in Friólo I, “so that the parties and any reviewing appellate court can follow the reasoning and test the validity of the findings.” Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443, 454-55 , 942 A.2d 1242, 1248-19 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Addison Ballisgreen1 sentence2013In United States v. Ballis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1402 (5th Cir.1994), Ballis pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement with the government. | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp.green2 sentences2006Thus, based on the circuit court’s order it is difficult, if not impossible, to “follow the reasoning and test the validity of the *451 [court’s] findings.” Friolo I, supra, 373 Md. at 529 , 819 A.2d 354 ; see also Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 666 , 861 A.2d 735 (2004). 2006Thus, based on the circuit court’s order it is difficult, if not impossible, to “follow the reasoning and test the validity of the *451 [court’s] findings.” Friolo I, supra, 373 Md. at 529 , 819 A.2d 354 ; see also Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 666 , 861 A.2d 735 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Stategreen2 sentences1986The reasoning for this rule was expressed in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir.1977): Accord United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103, 107 (8th Cir.1976); Mann v. State, 96 Nev. 62, 63 , 605 P.2d 209, 210 (1980); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6). 1986The reasoning for this rule was expressed in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir.1977): Accord United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103, 107 (8th Cir.1976); Mann v. State, 96 Nev. 62, 63 , 605 P.2d 209, 210 (1980); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Maynard John Verdoorngreen1 sentence1986The reasoning for this rule was expressed in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir.1977): Accord United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103, 107 (8th Cir.1976); Mann v. State, 96 Nev. 62, 63 , 605 P.2d 209, 210 (1980); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Glen Hermangreen2 sentences1986The reasoning for this rule was expressed in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir.1977): Accord United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103, 107 (8th Cir.1976); Mann v. State, 96 Nev. 62, 63 , 605 P.2d 209, 210 (1980); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6). 1986The reasoning for this rule was expressed in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir.1977): Even before the enactment of rule 11(e) (6), we held that plea-related statements are inadmissible, recognizing the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that his statements will later be used against him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . 1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . | 1 | 1 |
Texas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal.Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . 1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . 1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2008In Pittman , Shari Hall (“Hall”) and her young son, Terran, filed an action against the owners of a residential property. 359 Md. at 518 , 754 A.2d at 1032 . 2008In Pittman , Shari Hall (“Hall”) and her young son, Terran, filed an action against the owners of a residential property. 359 Md. at 518 , 754 A.2d at 1032 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2017Although respondent agrees with the result of the Court of Special Appeals in Jones v. State, 222 Md.App. 600 , 114 A.3d 256 (2015), respondent and the State both disavow the Court's reasoning and analysis of the double jeopardy issue. 2017App. 600 , 114 A.3d 256 (2015), respondent and the State both disavow the Court’s reasoning and analysis of the double jeopardy issue. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sturdivant v. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
green
2 sentences2015Sturdivant v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 436 Md. 584, 587-88 , 84 A.3d 83 (2014). 2015Sturdivant v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 436 Md. 584, 587-88 , 84 A.3d 83 (2014). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. United States
green
1 sentence1995Court of Appeals in Smith v. United States, 561 A.2d 468 (1989), wherein a symbol was used in the place of Smith’s name in his codefendant’s redacted statement to police. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Chavarria v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1992The Court of Appeals held that “New Jersey law applies and controls all matters of substance, including the extent of liability and the right to, and measure of, contribution.” Steger, 219 Md. at 337 , 149 A.2d 762 (emphasis added). *42 Furthermore, several other states have adopted this reasoning in applying the rule of lex loci delicti. 7 In Chavarria v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 40 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1974), the question was whether a California statute providing for double damages in certain labor cases would apply if the case were transferred to Texas. 1992The Court of Appeals held that “New Jersey law applies and controls all matters of substance, including the extent of liability and the right to, and measure of, contribution.” Steger, 219 Md. at 337 , 149 A.2d 762 (emphasis added). *42 Furthermore, several other states have adopted this reasoning in applying the rule of lex loci delicti. 7 In Chavarria v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 40 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1974), the question was whether a California statute providing for double damages in certain labor cases would apply if the case were transferred to Texas. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Steger v. Egyud
green
2 sentences1992The Court of Appeals held that “New Jersey law applies and controls all matters of substance, including the extent of liability and the right to, and measure of, contribution.” Steger, 219 Md. at 337 , 149 A.2d 762 (emphasis added). *42 Furthermore, several other states have adopted this reasoning in applying the rule of lex loci delicti. 7 In Chavarria v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 40 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1974), the question was whether a California statute providing for double damages in certain labor cases would apply if the case were transferred to Texas. 1992The Court of Appeals held that “New Jersey law applies and controls all matters of substance, including the extent of liability and the right to, and measure of, contribution.” Steger, 219 Md. at 337 , 149 A.2d 762 (emphasis added). *42 Furthermore, several other states have adopted this reasoning in applying the rule of lex loci delicti. 7 In Chavarria v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 40 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1974), the question was whether a California statute providing for double damages in certain labor cases would apply if the case were transferred to Texas. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Commonwealth v. Szuchon
green
2 sentences1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal.Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . 1985See, e.g., People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 803 , 673 P.2d 680, 687-695 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); State v. Oritz, 88 N.M. 370 , 540 P.2d 850, 852-854 (1975); Com. v. Szuchon, supra, 484 A.2d at 1381 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State Ex Rel. Wikberg v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1976Wikberg v. Henderson, 292 So.2d 505 (LA. 1974).” While we can understand the appellant’s desire to have a review of prior cases, 1 his request for such a review would be better addressed to the Court of Appeals since this Court is bound by the decisions of that Court which have held that felony murder convictions do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Waters v. Tazewell
neutral
1 sentence1925The settlement cannot he extended, by construction, beyond the; just and fair import of its provisions; and, clearly, the court cannot create a settlement, or disposition of property, in violation of the jus rnariti, when none has been made by the party.’ So declared Chancellor Kent in Stewart v. Stewart, 7 Johns, ch. 229; and the reasoning and principle of construction of that case have been fully sanctioned and approved by the courts of this State, in Ward v. Thompson, 6 G. & J. 357 ; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291 , and Jones v. Brown, 1 Md. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Jones & White v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1925The settlement cannot he extended, by construction, beyond the; just and fair import of its provisions; and, clearly, the court cannot create a settlement, or disposition of property, in violation of the jus rnariti, when none has been made by the party.’ So declared Chancellor Kent in Stewart v. Stewart, 7 Johns, ch. 229; and the reasoning and principle of construction of that case have been fully sanctioned and approved by the courts of this State, in Ward v. Thompson, 6 G. & J. 357 ; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291 , and Jones v. Brown, 1 Md. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.