14 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zook v. Pescegreen2 sentences2022Undue influence “amounts to physical or moral coercion that forces a [person] to follow another’s judgment instead of his own.” Zook v. Pesce, 438 Md. 232, 248 (2014). 2022Undue influence “amounts to physical or moral coercion that forces a [person] to follow another’s judgment instead of his own.” Zook v. Pesce, 438 Md. 232, 248 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilkinsgreen1 sentence2022So, if a violation of the mandatory procedural requirement in Rule 4-342(e) does not give rise to a cognizable claim of illegality under Rule 4-345(a), see State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 275 (2006), then it stands to reason that the same applies to a violation of Rule 4-346(a). *** Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether the sentencing judge had the authority to impose the sentence that he did. | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2022To shed light on why the error here falls on the procedural side of the divide, we will briefly review a subset of such cases. 1 In Bailey v. State, 464 Md. 685, 690 (2019), the defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of driving while impaired by alcohol and related offenses. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. St. Johns Countygreen2 sentences2016Johns Cnty., 63 So. 3d 835, 839 (Fla. Dist. 2016Johns Cnty., 63 So.3d 835, 839 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2011). | 1 | 1 |
Hixon v. Buchbergergreen2 sentences2008Id. at 711 . (“While the injury to parental rights may be less severe in a case involving what is usually called visitation, that is a matter of degree that logically relates to damages rather than liability.”) In Hixon , we accepted that part of the Ruffalo Court’s ruling that recognized interference with visitation rights as a cognizable claim, but rejected the Ruffalo Court’s conclusion that even the most trivial departures from court-ordered visitation could create a sustainable cause of action: This Court does not accept “that portion of the reasoning in Ruffalo which indicates that, beca 2008Id. at 711 . (“While the injury to parental rights may be less severe in a case involving what is usually called visitation, that is a matter of degree that logically relates to damages rather than liability.”) In Hixon , we accepted that part of the Ruffalo Court’s ruling that recognized interference with visitation rights as a cognizable claim, but rejected the Ruffalo Court’s conclusion that even the most trivial departures from court-ordered visitation could create a sustainable cause of action: This Court does not accept “that portion of the reasoning in Ruffalo which indicates that, beca | 1 | 1 |
Estelle v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2000It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251, 261 (1976). 2000It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251, 261 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Popham v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 138 . 2024Id. at 138 . | 3 | 2001–2024 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2014Analysis Although a multitude of contentions are presented by the parties, we conclude that this case turns on the retroactive applicability of the holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), to guilty pleas— such as Guardado’s—made prior to March 31, 2010 (the date of the Padilla decision). 6 The State contends that Guardado did not bring a cognizable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Padilla in the context of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. 2014Analysis Although a multitude of contentions are presented by the parties, we conclude that this case turns on the retroactive applicability of the holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), to guilty pleas— such as Guardado’s—made prior to March 31, 2010 (the date of the Padilla decision). 6 The State contends that Guardado did not bring a cognizable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Padilla in the context of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Arroyo v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 664-65 , 851 A.2d 576 . 2019Id. at 664-65 , 851 A.2d 576 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Corp. v. Tiller
green
2 sentences2013To be sure, there is broad language in Tiller, saying that "[ejvidence bearing on the expected work-life of the employee is not a cognizable exception to the collateral source rule.” 179 Md.App. at 340 , 944 A.2d at 1286 . 2013To be sure, there is broad language in Tiller, saying that "[ejvidence bearing on the expected work-life of the employee is not a cognizable exception to the collateral source rule.” 179 Md.App. at 340 , 944 A.2d at 1286 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bickerstaff
green
2 sentences2012In Bickerstaff, 187 Md.App. at 244 , 978 A.2d 760 , we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion “in excluding appellant’s cross examination question regarding industry retirement age statistics.” In Bickerstaff CSX (appellant) attempted to cross-examine Dr. Hamilton (the same witness as in this case) about statistics showing that the standard retirement age in the railroad industry was age sixty. 187 Md.App. at 241-42, 244 , 978 A.2d 760 . 2012In Bickerstaff, 187 Md.App. at 244 , 978 A.2d 760 , we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion “in excluding appellant’s cross examination question regarding industry retirement age statistics.” In Bickerstaff CSX (appellant) attempted to cross-examine Dr. Hamilton (the same witness as in this case) about statistics showing that the standard retirement age in the railroad industry was age sixty. 187 Md.App. at 241-42, 244 , 978 A.2d 760 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ruffalo v. United States
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 711 . ("While the injury to parental rights may be less severe in a case involving what is usually called visitation, that is a matter of degree that logically relates to damages rather than liability.") In Hixon , we accepted that part of the Ruffalo Court's ruling that recognized interference with visitation rights as a cognizable claim, but rejected the Ruffalo Court's conclusion that even the most trivial departures from court-ordered visitation could create a sustainable cause of action: *1264 This Court does not accept "that portion of the reasoning in Ruffalo which indicates that 2008Id. at 711 . (“While the injury to parental rights may be less severe in a case involving what is usually called visitation, that is a matter of degree that logically relates to damages rather than liability.”) In Hixon , we accepted that part of the Ruffalo Court’s ruling that recognized interference with visitation rights as a cognizable claim, but rejected the Ruffalo Court’s conclusion that even the most trivial departures from court-ordered visitation could create a sustainable cause of action: This Court does not accept “that portion of the reasoning in Ruffalo which indicates that, beca | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.