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.
14 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Barkergreen2 sentences1981Matter of Barker, 17 Md. 1976The general rule is that a waiver will be upheld where a preponderance of the legally sufficient evidence shows that such a determination is proper in the light of the factors to be considered.” See Matter of Barker, 17 Md. | 2 | 3 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. O'Learygreen2 sentences2022See Thompson, 462 Md. at 129 (making knowingly false statements to the AGC in an effort to paint oneself in a better light was a violation of MARPC 8.1(a)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Leary, 433 Md. 2, 26 (2013) (misleading the AGC during their investigation was a violation of MARPC 8.1(a)). 31 The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Proctor violated MARPC 8.1(b) between March 2019 and July 2019 when she failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s many attempts to contact her regarding the complaints that were filed against her. 2022See Thompson, 462 Md. at 129 (making knowingly false statements to the AGC in an effort to paint oneself in a better light was a violation of MARPC 8.1(a)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Leary, 433 Md. 2, 26 (2013) (misleading the AGC during their investigation was a violation of MARPC 8.1(a)). 31 The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Proctor violated MARPC 8.1(b) between March 2019 and July 2019 when she failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s many attempts to contact her regarding the complaints that were filed against her. | 2 | 2 |
Piscatelli v. Smithgreen2 sentences2016See Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294, 305-06 , 35 A.3d 1140, 1146-47 (2012). 3 . 2016See Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294, 305-06 , 35 A.3d 1140, 1146-47 (2012). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Wardengreen1 sentence1969In the light of those factors we concluded that the in-court (trial) identification was not the product of an unconstitutionally tainted pretrial confrontation. 5 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences2009As this Court stated in Johnson v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore County, 196 Md. 400 , 76 A.2d 736 (1950): [I]t is not our province to consider the evidence and decide whether or not the [Circuit] Court made a proper decision in the light of the factors prescribed by the zoning regulations for the guidance of the Board of Zoning Appeals in granting a special permit. 2009As this Court stated in Johnson v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore County, 196 Md. 400 , 76 A.2d 736 (1950): [I]t is not our province to consider the evidence and decide whether or not the [Circuit] Court made a proper decision in the light of the factors prescribed by the zoning regulations for the guidance of the Board of Zoning Appeals in granting a special permit. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Campbell v. State
green
2 sentences2005The newly discovered evidence in Campbell v. State, 373 Md. at 644 , 821 A.2d 1 , was that, in a murder case, a key State’s witness had previously made a false accusation of murder against another person in an unrelated case. 2005The newly discovered evidence in Campbell v. State, 373 Md. at 644 , 821 A.2d 1 , was that, in a murder case, a key State’s witness had previously made a false accusation of murder against another person in an unrelated case. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Yorke v. State
green
2 sentences2005We cannot say, in the light of our standard, that the new evidence touched on the evidence at the trial to the extent that it “may well have produced a different result.” We do not believe that there was “a substantial or significant possibility” that it would do so. 315 Md. at 590 , 556 A.2d 230 (emphasis supplied). 2005We cannot say, in the light of our standard, that the new evidence touched on the evidence at the trial to the extent that it “may well have produced a different result.” We do not believe that there was “a substantial or significant possibility” that it would do so. 315 Md. at 590 , 556 A.2d 230 (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Larry Allen Myers
green
1 sentence1981In summary, having considered the circumstances concerning the undisclosed alibi witness in the case at bar in the light of the factors enumerated in United States v. White and United States v. Myers, supra, we are persuaded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it excluded Mrs. Rosier’s testimony. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Matter of Johnson
green
1 sentence1976App. 714, 721 (1973); Matter of Johnson, 17 Md. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Buchanan v. Galliher
green
1 sentence1974App. 83, 87 , 272 A. 2d 814, 817 , we said: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and *121 inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for th | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Stein v. Overlook Joint Venture
green
2 sentences1973In Stein v. Overlook Joint Venture, 246 Md. 75 , 227 A. 2d 226 , the Court of Appeals said, at page 81: “The direction of a verdict in favor of a defendant is not justified if there is any evidence, however slight, legally sufficient to prove negligence. 1973In Stein v. Overlook Joint Venture, 246 Md. 75 , 227 A. 2d 226 , the Court of Appeals said, at page 81: “The direction of a verdict in favor of a defendant is not justified if there is any evidence, however slight, legally sufficient to prove negligence. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Roth v. United States
green
2 sentences1971The appeal to prurient interest requirement must be construed in the light of the test of obscenity as stated in Roth : “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material as a whole appeals to prurient interest.” 354 U. S. at 489 . 1971The appeal to prurient interest requirement must be construed in the light of the test of obscenity as stated in Roth : "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material as a whole appeals to prurient interest." 354 U.S. at 489 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Merrifield v. C. Hoffberger Co.
green
1 sentence1928In determining this question, as was said in the case of Merrifield v. Hoffberger, supra, “we are hound to take that evidence as being true, to assume all legitimate inferences deducible therefrom, and place upon it that construction which is most favorable to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.” Considering the testimony in this case in the light of that rule, the question is, Does it show such a distinct, prominent, and decisive act of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, upon which there could be no difference of opinion in the minds of ordinarily prudent and intelligent men? | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.