presumptive privilege in Maryland

14 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hamilton, Superintendent v. Verdowgreen md · 1980 · cited in 6 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2026 2 sentences 2026App. at 464 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 588 )). “[W]hen a government official makes a formal claim of executive privilege for confidential communications ‘of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’” Wash. Post, 360 Md. at 558 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 ). 2026App. at 464 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 588 )). “[W]hen a government official makes a formal claim of executive privilege for confidential communications ‘of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’” Wash. Post, 360 Md. at 558 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 ).	2	6
Conyers v. Stategreen md · 1997 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2011 2 sentences 2011While answering “no” to this question, we noted that Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) “determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion,” Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine “whether the accused’s involvement in the other crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence,” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ; and (3) “[t]he necessity 2011While answering “no” to this question, we noted that Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) “determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion,” Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine “whether the accused’s involvement in the other crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence,” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ; and (3) “[t]he necessity	2	2
Senate Select Committee On Presidential Campaign Activities v. Richard M. Nixongreen cadc · 1974 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2007 2 sentences 2007"We went on to hold [in Hamilton ] that this presumptive privilege extended even to ' "the limited intrusion represented by an in camera examination of the conversations by a court." ' ” 360 Md. at 594 , 759 A.2d at 289 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 (quoting Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 730 (D.C.Cir.1974))). 11 . 2000We went on to hold that this presumptive privilege extended even to “ ‘the limited intrusion represented by an in camera examination of the conversations by a court.’ ” Id. (quoting Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 730 (D.C.Cir.1974)).	2	2
Environmental Protection Agency v. Minkred scotus · 1973 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2003 2 sentences 2003Turning to factual documents as opposed to documents of an advisory or deliberative nature, we held in Hamilton that “ordinarily, ‘memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material’ ” are disclosable, 287 Md. at 564 , 414 A.2d at 925 , quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87 , 93 S.Ct. 827, 836 , 35 L.Ed.2d 119, 132 (1973). 2003Turning to factual documents as opposed to documents of an advisory or deliberative nature, we held in Hamilton that “ordinarily, ‘memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material’ ” are disclosable, 287 Md. at 564 , 414 A.2d at 925 , quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87 , 93 S.Ct. 827, 836 , 35 L.Ed.2d 119, 132 (1973).	2	2
State v. Pittmangreen njsuperctappdiv · 2011 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023A phenolphthalein test, which is also known as the Kastle-Meyer test, “is a presumptive test for blood.” State v. Pittman, 18 A.3d 203, 207 (N.J.	1	1
Ehrlich v. Grovegreen md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 (citations omitted); see also Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 567-68 , 914 A.3d at 794 (quoting Hamilton); Office of Governor, 360 Md. at 558 , 759 A.2d at 270 (quoting Hamilton); 33 Prince George’s County. v. The Wash. Post Co., 149 Md. 2017Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 (citations omitted); see also Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 567-68 , 914 A.2d at 794 (quoting Hamilton); Office of Governor, 360 Md. at 558 , 759 A.2d at 270 (quoting Hamilton); Prince George’s County v. The Wash. Post Co., 149 Md.App. 289, 319 , 815 A.2d 859, 876 (2003) (quoting Hamilton).	1	1
Prince George's County v. Washington Post Co.green mdctspecapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 (citations omitted); see also Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 567-68 , 914 A.3d at 794 (quoting Hamilton); Office of Governor, 360 Md. at 558 , 759 A.2d at 270 (quoting Hamilton); 33 Prince George’s County. v. The Wash. Post Co., 149 Md. 2017Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 (citations omitted); see also Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 567-68 , 914 A.2d at 794 (quoting Hamilton); Office of Governor, 360 Md. at 558 , 759 A.2d at 270 (quoting Hamilton); Prince George’s County v. The Wash. Post Co., 149 Md.App. 289, 319 , 815 A.2d 859, 876 (2003) (quoting Hamilton).	1	1
Hawk v. Hawkgreen tenn · 1993 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Without finding that the parents were unfit or that a dissolving marriage between the parents had brought the matter of child custody before the court, the court imposed its own notion of the children’s best interests over the shared opinion of these parents, stripping them of their right to control in parenting decisions.’ Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 582 (Tenn.1993).	1	1
cluster 251545green cadc · 1960 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. at 708 ; Nixon v. Sirica, supra, 487 F.2d at 717 ; Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 363 F.2d at 604-605 ; Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 660; Zeiss, supra, 40 F.R.D. at 328-329 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Faulkner green md · 1989 2 sentences 2011While answering “no” to this question, we noted that Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) “determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion,” Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine “whether the accused’s involvement in the other crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence,” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ; and (3) “[t]he necessity 2011While answering “no” to this question, we noted that Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) “determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion,” Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine “whether the accused’s involvement in the other crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence,” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ; and (3) “[t]he necessity	4	1997–2011
Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co. green md · 2000 2 sentences 2026App. at 464 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 588 )). “[W]hen a government official makes a formal claim of executive privilege for confidential communications ‘of an advisory or deliberative nature, there is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’” Wash. Post, 360 Md. at 558 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 ). 2007Judge Raker, discussing the origins and purpose of executive privilege, cited to the same Hamilton language in her dissent in Office of Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520 , 759 A.2d 249 (2000) (Raker, J. dissenting) when she stated: " '... [T]here is a presumptive privilege, with the burden upon those seeking to compel disclosure.’ " 360 Md. at 594 , 759 A.2d at 289 (quoting Hamilton, 287 Md. at 563 , 414 A.2d at 925 ).	3	2007–2026
Sessoms v. Maryland green md · 2000 1 sentence 2011Id. at 281, n. 2, 744 A.2d at 13 n. 2.	1	2011–2011
Patterson v. State green md · 1999 2 sentences 2000It was Tyrone Pitman who allegedly approached the vehicle and made the accusation against Kelly Dillon and it was in response to his comment that Tracy Dillon recanted her statement. [2] Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) "determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion," Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine "whether the accused's involvement in th 2000It was Tyrone Pitman who allegedly approached the vehicle and made the accusation against Kelly Dillon and it was in response to his comment that Tracy Dillon recanted her statement. [2] Faulkner created a three-part test that a trial judge must apply before admitting other crimes evidence: (1) "determine whether the evidence is prima facie admissible because it fits within any exception to the presumptive rule of exclusion," Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 550 , 693 A.2d 781, 793 (1997) (citing Faulkner, 314 Md. at 634 , 552 A.2d at 898 ); (2) determine "whether the accused's involvement in th	1	2000–2000
United States v. Danny Sellers and Terry Roach green ca11 · 1990 1 sentence 2000When appropriate, a missing witness inference may be argued to the jury. [4] The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit later questioned its own reasoning behind limiting FRE 404(b) to crimes, wrongs, and acts committed by a defendant, but acknowledged that they were "bound by it as precedent." United States v. Sellers, 906 F.2d 597 , 604 n. 11 (11th Cir. 1990). [5] Only the Ninth Circuit has expressed the minority view, which broadens FRE 404(b) in criminal proceedings to exclude evidence of crimes, wrongs, and acts committed by witnesses.	1	2000–2000
Goodwich v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. green mdctspecapp · 1995 2 sentences 1996Goodwich, supra, 103 Md.App. at 352 , 653 A.2d at 546 . 1996Goodwich, supra, 103 Md.App. at 352 , 653 A.2d at 546 .	1	1996–1996
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V. E. B. Carl Zeiss, Jena green dcd · 1966 1 sentence 1980United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. at 708 ; Nixon v. Sirica, supra, 487 F.2d at 717 ; Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 363 F.2d at 604-605 ; Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 660; Zeiss, supra, 40 F.R.D. at 328-329 .	1	1980–1980
United States v. Nixon green scotus · 1974 1 sentence 1980United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. at 708 ; Nixon v. Sirica, supra, 487 F.2d at 717 ; Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 363 F.2d at 604-605 ; Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 660; Zeiss, supra, 40 F.R.D. at 328-329 .	1	1980–1980
Elmer P. Davis, Regional Director, Sixteenth Region, National Labor Relations Board v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. green ca5 · 1966 1 sentence 1980United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. at 708 ; Nixon v. Sirica, supra, 487 F.2d at 717 ; Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 363 F.2d at 604-605 ; Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 660; Zeiss, supra, 40 F.R.D. at 328-329 .	1	1980–1980
cluster 314896 green cadc · 1973 1 sentence 1980United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. at 708 ; Nixon v. Sirica, supra, 487 F.2d at 717 ; Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 363 F.2d at 604-605 ; Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 660; Zeiss, supra, 40 F.R.D. at 328-329 .	1	1980–1980

Where else courts name it

WA 46 (1986–2025) CA 36 (1886–2025) IL 32 (1890–2024) NJ 18 (1960–2026) TX 18 (1985–2026) MD 14 (1980–2026) IN 14 (1884–2023) PA 13 (1972–2023) DE 12 (1979–2025) UT 10 (1993–2019) MN 9 (1964–2015) MI 9 (1968–2022) WY 8 (1989–2015) DC 8 (1992–2011) NC 8 (1961–2022) AZ 8 (1997–2025) NY 7 (1937–2021) IA 6 (1978–2015) LA 6 (1959–2014) ND 5 (1986–2014) WI 5 (1989–2023) VT 5 (1990–2019) AL 5 (1845–2017) OH 5 (2006–2026) CO 4 (1986–2017) KS 4 (1986–2022) AK 4 (1986–2025) MO 4 (1991–2014) NM 3 (1988–2020) CT 3 (2002–2019) OK 3 (2011–2014) NV 2 (2015–2015) ME 2 (2002–2017) GA 2 (1979–1983) KY 2 (1975–2022) FL 2 (1984–2003) WV 2 (2015–2026) MA 2 (1932–2017) OR 2 (1914–1949) MS 2 (1966–2022) NH 2 (1984–2003) VA 2 (2008–2012) MT 2 (2007–2023)

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