14 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Chanthunyagreen2 sentences2019Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B) ("The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Chanthunya , 446 Md. 576 , 588, 133 A.3d 1034 (2016) ("This Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge's findings of fact." (citations omitted) ); Md. 2019Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B) ("The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Chanthunya , 446 Md. 576 , 588, 133 A.3d 1034 (2016) ("This Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge's findings of fact." (citations omitted) ); Md. | 2 | 9 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moellergreen2 sentences2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). 2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). 2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleafgreen2 sentences2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). 2015Rule 16—759(b)(1); see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 156 , 91 A.3d 1066, 1069 (2014) (“In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error the hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66, 73 , 46 A.3d 407, 411 (2012) (“With respect to a hearing judge’s conclusions of law, no deference applies and we review those conclusions de novo.”); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 , 28 A.3d 1196, 1205 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance v. Proctorgreen1 sentence2024“This Court shall not disturb the hearing judge’s findings where there is any competent evidence to support the finding of fact.” O’Neill, 477 Md. at 658, 271 A.3d at 808 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance v. O'Neillgreen1 sentence2024“This Court shall not disturb the hearing judge’s findings where there is any competent evidence to support the finding of fact.” O’Neill, 477 Md. at 658, 271 A.3d at 808 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance v. Cassillygreen2 sentences2024“In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact and reviews without deference a hearing judge’s conclusions of law.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Cassilly, 476 Md. 309 , 339–40, 262 A.3d 272, 289 (2021). 2024“In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact and reviews without deference a hearing judge’s conclusions of law.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Cassilly, 476 Md. 309 , 339–40, 262 A.3d 272, 289 (2021). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Washington v. State, 424 Md. 632, 651 , 37 A.3d 932, 943 (2012) (“[T]he ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is applicable to the Circuit Court’s finding that [a] search ... was a reasonable search under [CP] § 8-201 [.]” (Ellipsis and second alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). *673 Here, we conclude that Fuster failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that the State conducted a reasonable search for W.K.’s socks and shoes. 2014See Washington v. State, 424 Md. 632, 651 , 37 A.3d 932, 943 (2012) (“[T]he ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is applicable to the Circuit Court’s finding that [a] search ... was a reasonable search under [CP] § 8-201 [.]” (Ellipsis and second alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). *673 Here, we conclude that Fuster failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that the State conducted a reasonable search for W.K.’s socks and shoes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Slate
green
2 sentences2018R. 19-741(b)(2)(B) ("The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Slate , 457 Md. 610 , 626, 180 A.3d 134 , 144 (2018) ("This Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge's findings of fact." (Cleaned up) ); Md. 2018R. 19-741(b)(2)(B) ("The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Slate , 457 Md. 610 , 626, 180 A.3d 134 , 144 (2018) ("This Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge's findings of fact." (Cleaned up) ); Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.