universally accepted rule (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

universally accepted rule in Maryland

15 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (14)

CaseFollowedCited
Ross v. Stategreen
md · 1976 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1978–1985
2 sentences

1985“The law of this State is fully in accord with the universally accepted rule ‘that in a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same type, is irrelevant and inadmissible.’ Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669 [ 350 A.2d 680 ] (1976).” The reasons for the exclusion of other crimes’ evidence include latent hostility toward the defendant by the jury and the inference of a criminal disposition on the part of the accused.

1985“The law of this State is fully in accord with the universally accepted rule ‘that in a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same type, is irrelevant and inadmissible.’ Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669 [ 350 A.2d 680 ] (1976).” The reasons for the exclusion of other crimes’ evidence include latent hostility toward the defendant by the jury and the inference of a criminal disposition on the part of the accused.

22
Edwards v. Stategreen
md · 1951 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005In Edwards v. State, 198 Md. 132, 146 , 81 A.2d 631, 637 (1951), involving testimony by a prison guard as to a conversation he overheard between two prisoners, we held: “It is a universally accepted rule that in proving oral utterances verbal precision is not required, but the substance or effect is sufficient.

2005In Edwards v. State, 198 Md. 132, 146 , 81 A.2d 631, 637 (1951), involving testimony by a prison guard as to a conversation he overheard between two prisoners, we held: “It is a universally accepted rule that in proving oral utterances verbal precision is not required, but the substance or effect is sufficient.

11
Moye v. Stategreen
md · 2002 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

11
Waitkus v. Mauetgreen
arizctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
In Re Graygreen
calctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
State v. Morenogreen
ariz · 1981 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
Gall v. Commonwealthgreen
ky · 1985 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11
State v. Taylorgreen
nc · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Davis BALLARD, Defendant-Appellantgreen
ca5 · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11
Petition of Gillhamgreen
mont · 1985 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
Johnnie Tasby v. United Statesgreen
ca8 · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11
Peppers v. Balkcomgreen
ga · 1963 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
Logston v. Stategreen
ind · 1977 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

11
Blanchard v. Kingstongreen
mich · 1923 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
1 sentence

1970See also Blanchard v. Kingston, 193 N. W. 241 (Mich. 1923) ; Spalding v. Miller, 45 S. W. 462 (Ky. 1898) ; Zehring’s Estate, 4 Pa. Super.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

CaseCitedYears
Bloom v. Good Humor Ice Cream Co. green
md · 1941
2 sentences

2011Thus, we restrict liability to those actions that are “proximate” causes of harm, a principle perhaps best expressed in Judge Forsyth’s opinion from Bloom v. Good Humor Ice Cream Co., 179 Md. 384, 387 , 18 A.2d 592 (1941): Variously stated, the universally accepted rule as to the proximate cause is that, unless an act, or omission of a duty, or both, are the direct and continuing cause of an injury, recovery will not be allowed.

2011Thus, we restrict liability to those actions that are “proximate” causes of harm, a principle perhaps best expressed in Judge Forsyth’s opinion from Bloom v. Good Humor Ice Cream Co., 179 Md. 384, 387 , 18 A.2d 592 (1941): Variously stated, the universally accepted rule as to the proximate cause is that, unless an act, or omission of a duty, or both, are the direct and continuing cause of an injury, recovery will not be allowed.

31970–2011
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2019Strickland v. Washington : The Two-Pronged Test Since 1984, the universally accepted test for measuring the Sixth Amendment adequacy of counsel, both trial and appellate, has been Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2019Strickland v. Washington : The Two-Pronged Test Since 1984, the universally accepted test for measuring the Sixth Amendment adequacy of counsel, both trial and appellate, has been Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

22019–2019
Cochran v. Norkunas green
md · 2007
1 sentence

2025This follows from the universally accepted principle that “a manifestation of mutual assent is an essential prerequisite to the creation or formation of a contract.” Cochran, 398 Md. at 14 .

12025–2025
Mattox v. United States green
· 1895
2 sentences

2014They are admitted, not in conformity with any general rule regarding the admission of testimony, but as an exception to such rules [.] 156 U.S. at 243-44 , 15 S.Ct. 337 (emphasis supplied). 8 In any event, the Dying Declaration was a well-settled and universally accepted principle of Anglo-American law as of the proposal and ratification of the Confrontation Clause in 1789- *244 91.

2014They are admitted, not in conformity with any general rule regarding the admission of testimony, but as an exception to such rules [.] 156 U.S. at 243-44 , 15 S.Ct. 337 (emphasis supplied). 8 In any event, the Dying Declaration was a well-settled and universally accepted principle of Anglo-American law as of the proposal and ratification of the Confrontation Clause in 1789- *244 91.

12014–2014
Pointer v. Texas green
scotus · 1965
2 sentences

2014Even as the Supreme Court in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), first held that the Confrontation Clause was part of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and, therefore, applicable to the states, it squarely maintained: This Court has recognized the admissibility against an accused of dying declarations ...

2014Even as the Supreme Court in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), first held that the Confrontation Clause was part of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and, therefore, applicable to the states, it squarely maintained: This Court has recognized the admissibility against an accused of dying declarations ...

12014–2014
Fleming v. State green
md · 2003
2 sentences

2010“It is a universally accepted rule of law that mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime is not of itself sufficient to prove the guilt of that person, even though it is an important element in determination of the guilt of the accused.” Fleming v. State, 373 Md. 426, 433 , 818 A.2d 1117 (2003) (citations omitted).

2010“It is a universally accepted rule of law that mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime is not of itself sufficient to prove the guilt of that person, even though it is an important element in determination of the guilt of the accused.” Fleming v. State, 373 Md. 426, 433 , 818 A.2d 1117 (2003) (citations omitted).

12010–2010
Watson v. State green
md · 2001
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
Taylor v. State green
md · 1997
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
White v. State green
md · 2001
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
Hopewell v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1998
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
Wilson v. State green
md · 1990
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
Tasco v. State green
md · 1960
2 sentences

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

2003See e.g., Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 , 796 A.2d 821 (2002); White v. State, 363 Md. 150 , 767 A.2d 855 (2001); Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452 , 697 A.2d 462 (1997); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503 , 165 A.2d 456 (1960); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A.2d 549 (1955); Hopewell v. State, 122 Md.App. 207 , 712 A.2d 88 (1998); 2 Wayne R.

12003–2003
Ballard v. United States green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11992–1992
Matchett v. Chicago Council of Lawyers green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11992–1992
O'Mahony v. Chicago Transit Authority green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky. 1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App. 1988); In re Gray,

1992U.S. v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 292 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1518 , 89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986); Tasby v. U.S., 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1974); State v. Taylor, 327 N.C. 147 , 393 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1990); Petition of Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 , 704 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1985); Gall v. Com., 702 S.W.2d 37, 44-45 (Ky.1985); State v. Moreno, 128 Ariz. 257 , 625 P.2d 320, 323 (1981); Logston v. State, 266 Ind. 395 , 363 N.E.2d 975, 977 (1977); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 , 130 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1963); Waitkus v. Mauet, 157 Ariz. 339 , 757 P.2d 615, 616 (App.1988); In re Gray, 1

11992–1992
Beyer v. Mayor of Baltimore green
md · 1943
11970–1970
Landay v. Board of Zoning Appeals green
md · 1938
2 sentences

1970It is said too that: `It is a universally accepted principle that mere non-user of property over a period of time, when unaccompanied by any other acts indicating an intention to relinquish or abandon title thereto or ownership thereof, does not amount to an abandonment.' 1 C.J.S. 10." ( 173 Md. at 469-70 , 196 A. at 297 ).

1970It is said too that: ‘It is a universally accepted principle that mere non-user of property over a period of time, when unaccompanied by any other acts indicating an intention to relinquish or abandon title thereto or owner r ship thereof, does not amount to an abandonment.’ 1 C.J.S. 10.” ( 173 Md. at 469-70 , 196 A. at 297 ).

11970–1970
Assigned Estate of Zehring neutral
pasuperct · 1897
11970–1970
Thompson v. Gearheart green
va · 1923
11970–1970
Spalding v. Miller green
kyctapp · 1898
11970–1970

Where else courts name it

TX 17 (1928–2020) MS 16 (1914–2023) MD 15 (1970–2025) LA 13 (1930–2011) CA 13 (1895–2005) IL 12 (1929–2023) FL 11 (1953–2024) KY 10 (1923–2025) CT 9 (1935–2015) WA 8 (1915–1980) NC 8 (1930–2007) OR 8 (1923–1999) CO 8 (1942–1990) MO 7 (1899–1974) KS 6 (1962–2019) PA 6 (1954–2021) GA 6 (1925–2015) ID 6 (1905–1989) OK 6 (1950–1977) IA 6 (1934–1973) AR 5 (1993–2007) NJ 5 (1958–2005) IN 5 (1888–1994) NY 4 (1950–1995) TN 4 (1904–1965) UT 4 (1968–2000) NM 3 (1963–1996) WI 3 (1891–2008) PR 3 (1954–1970) MN 3 (1937–1943) OH 2 (1931–1942) VT 2 (1964–1983) RI 2 (1945–2004) WY 2 (1974–2000) ND 2 (1896–1910) MI 2 (1980–1982) VA 2 (1965–1999) AK 2 (1980–1995) WV 2 (1967–1974)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check