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 1991–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. Wardgreen2 sentences1991As we noted in Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336, 339, 449 A.2d 443 (1982), “It is important to recognize that the monetary award is purely discretionary.” Nor is *590 the court now required to hear evidence on the ten factors of § 8-205(a), as appellant asserts. 1991As we noted in Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336, 339, 449 A.2d 443 (1982), “It is important to recognize that the monetary award is purely discretionary.” Nor is *590 the court now required to hear evidence on the ten factors of § 8-205(a), as appellant asserts. | 4 | 7 |
Rochkind v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2022In Rochkind, 471 Md. at 4-5 , 236 A.3d at 632-33, this Court abandoned the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. 2022In Rochkind, 471 Md. at 4-5 , 236 A.3d at 632-33, this Court abandoned the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2022In Rochkind, 471 Md. at 4-5 , 236 A.3d at 632-33, this Court abandoned the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. 2022In Rochkind, 471 Md. at 4-5 , 236 A.3d at 632-33, this Court abandoned the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
Harper v. Harpergreen2 sentences1993Id. 314 Md. at 106 -07 n. 5, 549 A.2d at 15 n. 5; Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 79 , 448 A.2d 916, 929 (1982). 1993Id. 314 Md. at 106 -07 n. 5, 549 A.2d at 15 n. 5; Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 79 , 448 A.2d 916, 929 (1982). | 1 | 3 |
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2011See Friolo III, 403 Md. at 456 , 942 A.2d 1242 (stating that courts must be "mindful” of MRPC 1.5 (citing Friolo I, 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 )). 17 . 2011See Friolo III, 403 Md. at 456 , 942 A.2d 1242 (stating that courts must be "mindful” of MRPC 1.5 (citing Friolo I, 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 )). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2011See Friolo III, 403 Md. at 456 , 942 A.2d 1242 (stating that courts must be "mindful” of MRPC 1.5 (citing Friolo I, 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 )). 17 . 2011See Friolo III, 403 Md. at 456 , 942 A.2d 1242 (stating that courts must be "mindful” of MRPC 1.5 (citing Friolo I, 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 )). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Giedinghagen v. Giedinghagengreen2 sentences1993See Giedinghagen v. Giedinghagen, 712 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. 1986), in which the court held We do not hold nor intimate that husband here is entitled to any portion of the proceeds of the lottery winnings. 1993See Giedinghagen v. Giedinghagen, 712 S.W.2d 711 (Mo.App.1986), in which the court held We do not hold nor intimate that husband here is entitled to any portion of the proceeds of the lottery winnings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sawyer v. Humphries
green
2 sentences2020In future cases involving questions of scope of employment as to former members of the Department’s Gun Trace Task Force, courts must engage in a case-specific analysis and take into account all relevant considerations—including, if necessary, the ten factors that this Court set forth in Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-56 , 587 A.2d at 471 , for determining whether an employee’s actions were incidental to those that the employer authorized. 2020In future cases involving questions of scope of employment as to former members of the Department’s Gun Trace Task Force, courts must engage in a case-specific analysis and take into account all relevant considerations—including, if necessary, the ten factors that this Court set forth in Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-56 , 587 A.2d at 471 , for determining whether an employee’s actions were incidental to those that the employer authorized. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Wilen v. Wilen
green
2 sentences1991Harper, 294 Md. at 79 , 448 A.2d 916 ; Wilen v. Wilen, 61 Md.App. 337, 355 , 486 A.2d 775 (1985); Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336, 339 , 449 A.2d 443 (1982). 1991Harper, 294 Md. at 79 , 448 A.2d 916 ; Wilen v. Wilen, 61 Md.App. 337, 355 , 486 A.2d 775 (1985); Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336, 339 , 449 A.2d 443 (1982). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Balt. City Police Dept v. Potts
green
1 sentence2020The Court reiterated that 38 future questions regarding scope of employment, even as to former GTTF officers, would require “courts [to] engage in a case-specific analysis and take into account all relevant considerations—including, if necessary, the ten factors that this Court set forth in Sawyer, for determining whether an employee’s actions were incidental to those that the employer authorized.” Potts, 468 Md. at 319 (citing Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-56 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Maryland Classified Employees Ass'n v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1997And, of course, the appellees are also correct when they point out, referencing the ten factors identified by the appellants as indicative of binding collective bargaining, that “none of those factors, either singularly or collectively, causes State officials to ‘bind themselves to exercise ... discretionary legislative powers ... or agree to delegate such powers to binding arbitration ....’” (quoting MCEA, 281 Md. at 508 , 380 A.2d at 1039 ). 1997And, of course, the appellees are also correct when they point out, referencing the ten factors identified by the appellants as indicative of binding collective bargaining, that “none of those factors, either singularly or collectively, causes State officials to ‘bind themselves to exercise ... discretionary legislative powers ... or agree to delegate such powers to binding arbitration ....’” (quoting MCEA, 281 Md. at 508 , 380 A.2d at 1039 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Spease and Ross v. State
green
2 sentences1994This standard focuses on the conduct of the monitoring agents. 7 In Spease and Ross, supra, 275 Md. at 100 , 338 A.2d 284 , we listed the following ten factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of minimization: “(1) the nature and scope of the crime being investigated; (2) the sophistication of those under suspicion and their efforts to avoid surveillance through such devices as coded conversations; (3) the location and the operation of the subject telephone; (4) government expectation of the contents of the call; (5) the extent of judicial supervision; (6) the duration of the 1994This standard focuses on the conduct of the monitoring agents. 7 In Spease and Ross, supra, 275 Md. at 100 , 338 A.2d 284 , we listed the following ten factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of minimization: “(1) the nature and scope of the crime being investigated; (2) the sophistication of those under suspicion and their efforts to avoid surveillance through such devices as coded conversations; (3) the location and the operation of the subject telephone; (4) government expectation of the contents of the call; (5) the extent of judicial supervision; (6) the duration of the | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Zandford v. Wiens
green
2 sentences1993Id. 314 Md. at 106 -07 n. 5, 549 A.2d at 15 n. 5; Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 79 , 448 A.2d 916, 929 (1982). 1993Id. 314 Md. at 106 -07 n. 5, 549 A.2d at 15 n. 5; Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 79 , 448 A.2d 916, 929 (1982). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gravenstine v. Gravenstine
green
2 sentences1992Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984).” Under § 8-205(b), the court is authorized to determine the “amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both” after consideration of the ten factors. 1992Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984).” Under § 8-205(b), the court is authorized to determine the “amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both” after consideration of the ten factors. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Deering v. Deering
green
2 sentences1992Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984).” Under § 8-205(b), the court is authorized to determine the “amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both” after consideration of the ten factors. 1992Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984).” Under § 8-205(b), the court is authorized to determine the “amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both” after consideration of the ten factors. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.