13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co.green2 sentences2006We conclude that it is not.”). 3 Here again, “we shall not draw negative inferences from this silent record.” Chaney, 375 Md. at 184 , 825 A.2d at 461 ; see also id. (“It is well-settled that, on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.”) (quoting Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1995)). 2006We conclude that it is not.”). 3 Here again, “we shall not draw negative inferences from this silent record.” Chaney, 375 Md. at 184 , 825 A.2d at 461 ; see also id. (“It is well-settled that, on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.”) (quoting Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1995)). | 2 | 3 |
Wooddy v. Muddgreen2 sentences2003Wooddy v. Mudd, 258 Md. 234, 237 , 265 A.2d 458, 460 (1970)(quoting Rippon v. Mercantile Safe Dep., 213 Md. 215, 222 , 131 A.2d 695, 698 (1957)). 2003Wooddy v. Mudd, 258 Md. 234, 237 , 265 A.2d 458, 460 (1970)(quoting Rippon v. Mercantile Safe Dep., 213 Md. 215, 222 , 131 A.2d 695, 698 (1957)). | 2 | 2 |
Rippon v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.green2 sentences2003Wooddy v. Mudd, 258 Md. 234, 237 , 265 A.2d 458, 460 (1970)(quoting Rippon v. Mercantile Safe Dep., 213 Md. 215, 222 , 131 A.2d 695, 698 (1957)). 2003Wooddy v. Mudd, 258 Md. 234, 237 , 265 A.2d 458, 460 (1970)(quoting Rippon v. Mercantile Safe Dep., 213 Md. 215, 222 , 131 A.2d 695, 698 (1957)). | 2 | 2 |
Catler v. Arent Fox, LLPgreen2 sentences2014See, *286 e.g., Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP, 212 Md.App. 685, 702-03 , 71 A.3d 155 cert. denied, 435 Md. 502 , 79 A.3d 947 (2013) (concluding that in the context of attorney-client privilege, it is well-established that the burden of establishing the privilege is on the party asserting the privilege). 2014See, *286 e.g., Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP, 212 Md.App. 685, 702-03 , 71 A.3d 155 cert. denied, 435 Md. 502 , 79 A.3d 947 (2013) (concluding that in the context of attorney-client privilege, it is well-established that the burden of establishing the privilege is on the party asserting the privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Staley v. Staleygreen2 sentences2010See also Staley v. Staley, 251 Md. 701, 705 , 248 A.2d 655, 658 (1968) (“The burden of proof in establishing lack of jurisdiction ... is upon the person alleging it.”). 2010See also Staley v. Staley, 251 Md. 701, 705 , 248 A.2d 655, 658 (1968) (“The burden of proof in establishing lack of jurisdiction ... is upon the person alleging it.”). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Reedgreen2 sentences2010See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 , 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547, 558 (1991) (stating that where a defendant claims prosecutorial immunity from suit, he or she “bears the burden of showing that such immunity is *695 justified for the function in question.”); O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 376 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining that the party claiming sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”) “bears the initial burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that it satisfies the FSIA’s definition of a foreign state.... ”); Alberti v. Empresa Nicarag 2010See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 , 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547, 558 (1991) (stating that where a defendant claims prosecutorial immunity from suit, he or she “bears the burden of showing that such immunity is *695 justified for the function in question.”); O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 376 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining that the party claiming sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”) “bears the initial burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that it satisfies the FSIA’s definition of a foreign state.... ”); Alberti v. Empresa Nicarag | 1 | 1 |
Lawrence R. Alberti and Alberti International, Inc. v. Empresa Nicaraguense De La Carne and the Republic of Nicaraguagreen1 sentence2010See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 , 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547, 558 (1991) (stating that where a defendant claims prosecutorial immunity from suit, he or she “bears the burden of showing that such immunity is *695 justified for the function in question.”); O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 376 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining that the party claiming sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”) “bears the initial burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that it satisfies the FSIA’s definition of a foreign state.... ”); Alberti v. Empresa Nicarag | 1 | 1 |
O'Bryan v. Holy Seegreen1 sentence2010See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 , 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547, 558 (1991) (stating that where a defendant claims prosecutorial immunity from suit, he or she “bears the burden of showing that such immunity is *695 justified for the function in question.”); O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 376 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining that the party claiming sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”) “bears the initial burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that it satisfies the FSIA’s definition of a foreign state.... ”); Alberti v. Empresa Nicarag | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chaneygreen2 sentences2006We conclude that it is not.”). 3 Here again, “we shall not draw negative inferences from this silent record.” Chaney, 375 Md. at 184 , 825 A.2d at 461 ; see also id. (“It is well-settled that, on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.”) (quoting Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1995)). 2006We conclude that it is not.”). 3 Here again, “we shall not draw negative inferences from this silent record.” Chaney, 375 Md. at 184 , 825 A.2d at 461 ; see also id. (“It is well-settled that, on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.”) (quoting Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. City of Annapolisgreen2 sentences1998Furthermore, “on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.” *143 Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050 (1995); see also Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 450 , 688 A.2d 448 (1997); Myers v. Estate of Alessi, 80 Md.App. 124, 140 , 560 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 317 Md. 640 , 566 A.2d 101 (1989). 1998Furthermore, “on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.” *143 Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050 (1995); see also Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 450 , 688 A.2d 448 (1997); Myers v. Estate of Alessi, 80 Md.App. 124, 140 , 560 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 317 Md. 640 , 566 A.2d 101 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Odessa McCall Guardian of the Estate of Joseph Bess, Jr., an Incompetent Minor v. United States
green
1 sentence2026Est. of Bess v. United States, 310 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2002)) (“[A]lthough the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing an exception to the two- year administrative statute of limitations applicable to the [Federal Tort Claims Act].”); 35A Am. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Simms v. Constantine
green
2 sentences2015Simms v. Constantine, 113 Md.App. 291, 318-319 , 688 A.2d 1 (1997). *5 DISCUSSION a. 2015Simms v. Constantine, 113 Md.App. 291, 318-319 , 688 A.2d 1 (1997). *5 DISCUSSION a. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Weston-Dodson Co. v. Carl
green
2 sentences2005Weston-Dodson Co. v. Carl, 156 Md. 535, 540 , 144 A. 708 (1929), was equally emphatic that, at the circuit court level, any insufficiency in the evidence will work against the appealing party and not against the party enjoying the presumption that the Commission’s decision was correct. [AJs the commission awarded compensation, and the burden of establishing error in its findings was by this fact cast upon the employer and insurer on their appeal under section 56 of the act, insufficiency of any sort in the proof must work against them. 2005Weston-Dodson Co. v. Carl, 156 Md. 535, 540 , 144 A. 708 (1929), was equally emphatic that, at the circuit court level, any insufficiency in the evidence will work against the appealing party and not against the party enjoying the presumption that the Commission’s decision was correct. [AJs the commission awarded compensation, and the burden of establishing error in its findings was by this fact cast upon the employer and insurer on their appeal under section 56 of the act, insufficiency of any sort in the proof must work against them. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Faulk v. STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR HARFORD CTY.
green
2 sentences1999Considering that the Department bears the burden of establishing an exception to the liberal disclosure provisions of the PIA, see Faulk, 299 Md. at 507 , 474 A.2d 880 ; Fioretti, 351 Md. at 78 , 716 A.2d 258 , we believe the agency’s position with respect to appellant’s request conflicts with the Legislature’s intent to make confidential only those documents actually related to “research” and “study.” We explain further. 1999Considering that the Department bears the burden of establishing an exception to the liberal disclosure provisions of the PIA, see Faulk, 299 Md. at 507 , 474 A.2d 880 ; Fioretti, 351 Md. at 78 , 716 A.2d 258 , we believe the agency’s position with respect to appellant’s request conflicts with the Legislature’s intent to make confidential only those documents actually related to “research” and “study.” We explain further. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners
green
2 sentences1999Considering that the Department bears the burden of establishing an exception to the liberal disclosure provisions of the PIA, see Faulk, 299 Md. at 507 , 474 A.2d 880 ; Fioretti, 351 Md. at 78 , 716 A.2d 258 , we believe the agency’s position with respect to appellant’s request conflicts with the Legislature’s intent to make confidential only those documents actually related to “research” and “study.” We explain further. 1999Considering that the Department bears the burden of establishing an exception to the liberal disclosure provisions of the PIA, see Faulk, 299 Md. at 507 , 474 A.2d 880 ; Fioretti, 351 Md. at 78 , 716 A.2d 258 , we believe the agency’s position with respect to appellant’s request conflicts with the Legislature’s intent to make confidential only those documents actually related to “research” and “study.” We explain further. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Myers v. Estate of Alessi
green
2 sentences1998Furthermore, “on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.” *143 Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050 (1995); see also Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 450 , 688 A.2d 448 (1997); Myers v. Estate of Alessi, 80 Md.App. 124, 140 , 560 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 317 Md. 640 , 566 A.2d 101 (1989). 1998Furthermore, “on appeal, the burden of establishing error in the lower court rests squarely on the appellant.” *143 Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050 (1995); see also Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 450 , 688 A.2d 448 (1997); Myers v. Estate of Alessi, 80 Md.App. 124, 140 , 560 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 317 Md. 640 , 566 A.2d 101 (1989). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Criminal Investigation No. 1/242q
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
green
2 sentences1992In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 454 ; Charles McCormick, Evidence, § 88 at 209. 1992In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 454 ; Charles McCormick, Evidence, § 88 at 209. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Shoop v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
green
1 sentence1916But that view ignores the proviso which requires the affirmance of the assessment in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, and it thereby gives the words de novo an effect and scope clearly denied to them by that provisio. * * * Whatever conclusion might be drawn from the words de novo, if the burden of. proof was not fixed by the proviso embodied in this section, effect must be given to that proviso, which thus becomes decisive of the question.” The rule stated in Hurloc¥s case was later approved in Shoop v. Fidelity Company, 124 Md. 130 , and in the case of Yingling v. Hesson, | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Yingling v. Hesson
neutral
1 sentence1916But that view ignores the proviso which requires the affirmance of the assessment in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, and it thereby gives the words de novo an effect and scope clearly denied to them by that provisio. * * * Whatever conclusion might be drawn from the words de novo, if the burden of. proof was not fixed by the proviso embodied in this section, effect must be given to that proviso, which thus becomes decisive of the question.” The rule stated in Hurloc¥s case was later approved in Shoop v. Fidelity Company, 124 Md. 130 , and in the case of Yingling v. Hesson, | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.