contemplation rule in Maryland

13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2015 0 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Weitz v. MacKenziegreen md · 1975 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1983–2004 2 sentences 2004In Weitz [v. MacKenzie ], 273 Md. [628,] 631, 331 A.2d 291 [ (1975) ], we explained that: “irregularity, in the contemplation of the rule, usually means irregularity of process or procedure ... and not an error, which in legal parlance, generally connotes a departure from truth or accuracy of which a defendant had notice and could have challenged.” An example of an irregularity that would permit a court to set aside a judgment existed in Maryland Lumber v. Savoy Constr. 1998In Weitz, supra, 273 Md. at 631, 331 A.2d 291 , we explained that: "irregularity, in the contemplation of the rule, usually means irregularity of process or procedure ... and not an error, which in legal parlance, generally connotes a departure from truth or accuracy of which a defendant had notice and could have challenged.” An example of an irregularity that would permit a court to set aside a judgment existed in Maryland Lumber v. Savoy Constr.	1	3
United States v. Recognition Equipment, Inc.green dcd · 1989 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992See also United States v. Recognition Equip., Inc., 711 F.Supp. 1, 15 (D.D.C.1989) (denying, without explanation, defendants’ discovery request of polygraph examination).	1	1
Hughes v. Beltway Homes, Inc.green md · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983See Hughes, supra 276 Md. at 387 , 347 A.2d 837 . 1983See Hughes, supra 276 Md. at 387 , 347 A.2d 837 .	1	1
Midgett v. Stategreen md · 1981 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 1 sentence 1974See Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 ; Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349 ; Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 ; State v. Saul, 258 Md. 100 ; Saul v. State, 6 Md.	1	1
Gardner v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1970 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 1 sentence 1973See Gardner v. State, 10 Md.	1	1
Musgrove v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1967 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967 1 sentence 1967See also Musgrove v. State, 1 Md.	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 (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Maryland Lumber Co. v. Savoy Construction Co. green md · 1979 2 sentences 2004Co., 286 Md. 98 , 405 A.2d 741 (1979). 2004Co., 286 Md. 98 , 405 A.2d 741 (1979).	2	1998–2004
Pair v. State green mdctspecapp · 2011 2 sentences 2015We note that Maryland Rule 4-345 permits a trial court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time’’ and that the “failure to merge a sentence is considered to be an 'illegal sentence’ within the contemplation of the rule.” Pair v. State, 202 Md.App. 617, 624 , 33 A.3d 1024 (2011), cert. denied, 425 Md. 397 , 41 A.3d 571 (2012). 2015We note that Maryland Rule 4-345 permits a trial court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time’’ and that the “failure to merge a sentence is considered to be an 'illegal sentence’ within the contemplation of the rule.” Pair v. State, 202 Md.App. 617, 624 , 33 A.3d 1024 (2011), cert. denied, 425 Md. 397 , 41 A.3d 571 (2012).	1	2015–2015
Stephens v. LERCH, EARLY & BREWER CHARTERED green md · 2012 2 sentences 2015We note that Maryland Rule 4-345 permits a trial court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time’’ and that the “failure to merge a sentence is considered to be an 'illegal sentence’ within the contemplation of the rule.” Pair v. State, 202 Md.App. 617, 624 , 33 A.3d 1024 (2011), cert. denied, 425 Md. 397 , 41 A.3d 571 (2012). 2015We note that Maryland Rule 4-345 permits a trial court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time’’ and that the “failure to merge a sentence is considered to be an 'illegal sentence’ within the contemplation of the rule.” Pair v. State, 202 Md.App. 617, 624 , 33 A.3d 1024 (2011), cert. denied, 425 Md. 397 , 41 A.3d 571 (2012).	1	2015–2015
Ingram v. State green mdctspecapp · 2008 2 sentences 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989). 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989).	1	2011–2011
Anglin v. State green mdctspecapp · 1967 2 sentences 2011In Anglin v. State, 1 Md.App. 85 , 227 A.2d 364 (1967), cert. denied, 246 Md. 755 (1967), Judge Orth wrote for this Court, in affirming two separate burglary convictions, that respective time lapses of one month and six months between the possession and two original larcenies did not vitiate the potency of the inferences: We feel, under the circumstance of this case, the possession was “recent” within the contemplation of the rule. 1 Md.App. at 93 , 227 A.2d 364 (emphasis supplied). 2011In Anglin v. State, 1 Md.App. 85 , 227 A.2d 364 (1967), cert. denied, 246 Md. 755 (1967), Judge Orth wrote for this Court, in affirming two separate burglary convictions, that respective time lapses of one month and six months between the possession and two original larcenies did not vitiate the potency of the inferences: We feel, under the circumstance of this case, the possession was “recent” within the contemplation of the rule. 1 Md.App. at 93 , 227 A.2d 364 (emphasis supplied).	1	2011–2011
Campbell v. State green mdctspecapp · 1985 2 sentences 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989). 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989).	1	2011–2011
Randall Book Corp. v. State green md · 1989 2 sentences 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989). 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989).	1	2011–2011
Britton v. State green mdctspecapp · 2011 2 sentences 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989). 2011Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 , 30 A.3d 236 (2011); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 508-09 , 947 A.2d 74 (2008); Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510-11 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 319-22 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989).	1	2011–2011
Yang v. Estelle green scotus · 1989 1 sentence 1992Marin v. United States, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989), the trial court denied the defen *494 dant’s motion which sought “the results of any polygraph examination administered to anyone in connection with the Government’s investigation of the case____” The trial court gave its reasons for denying the motion. [T]his motion is denied with respect to the polygraph information, which this Court does not consider to be a “scientific test or experiment” within the contemplation of this rule in that its reliability has not been sufficiently established in the scientific communit	1	1992–1992
Lawson v. United States green scotus · 1989 1 sentence 1992Marin v. United States, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989), the trial court denied the defen *494 dant’s motion which sought “the results of any polygraph examination administered to anyone in connection with the Government’s investigation of the case____” The trial court gave its reasons for denying the motion. [T]his motion is denied with respect to the polygraph information, which this Court does not consider to be a “scientific test or experiment” within the contemplation of this rule in that its reliability has not been sufficiently established in the scientific communit	1	1992–1992
Alexandrapolous v. United States green scotus · 1989 1 sentence 1992Marin v. United States, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989), the trial court denied the defen *494 dant’s motion which sought “the results of any polygraph examination administered to anyone in connection with the Government’s investigation of the case____” The trial court gave its reasons for denying the motion. [T]his motion is denied with respect to the polygraph information, which this Court does not consider to be a “scientific test or experiment” within the contemplation of this rule in that its reliability has not been sufficiently established in the scientific communit	1	1992–1992
Jones v. State green md · 1918 2 sentences 1976For example, in Jones some of the evidence offered in rebuttal “had reference to new matters testified to by the [accused], and of which the prosecutrix had no knowledge, if her evidence be true; and some of it to special matters of defense which the State could not anticipate.” 132 Md. at 149 . 1976For example, in Jones some of the evidence offered in rebuttal "had reference to new matters testified to by the [accused], and of which the prosecutrix had no knowledge, if her evidence be true; and some of it to special matters of defense which the State could not anticipate." 132 Md. at 149 .	1	1976–1976
Bannon v. Warfield green · 1875 1 sentence 1976The factors to be considered by the court in exercising its discretion when to grant the request may vary according to the time at which the request is made, however. [5] We note: "It is a well settled rule of evidence, that the introduction of improper or immaterial evidence on one side does not justify the introduction of irrelevant matter on the other ...." Bannon v. Warfield, supra, at 40 . [6] In the cases which we have examined honoring the discretion of the trial court to determine the admission vel non of evidence offered in rebuttal, it appeared that there was substantial basis that t	1	1976–1976
Saul v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 1 sentence 1974See Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 ; Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349 ; Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 ; State v. Saul, 258 Md. 100 ; Saul v. State, 6 Md.	1	1974–1974
State v. Saul green md · 1970 1 sentence 1974See Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 ; Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349 ; Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 ; State v. Saul, 258 Md. 100 ; Saul v. State, 6 Md.	1	1974–1974
Brown v. State green md · 1961 1 sentence 1974See Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 ; Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349 ; Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 ; State v. Saul, 258 Md. 100 ; Saul v. State, 6 Md.	1	1974–1974
Martin v. State green md · 1962 1 sentence 1974See Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 ; Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349 ; Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 ; State v. Saul, 258 Md. 100 ; Saul v. State, 6 Md.	1	1974–1974
Hurley v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 1 sentence 1971App. 265 , as having a tendency to show that the defendant is not to be believed, Hurley v. State, 6 Md.	1	1971–1971
Holbrook v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 1 sentence 1971Therefore, “character” within the contemplation of the rule is confined to truth and veracity, the prior convictions going to credibility and being used to impeach, Holbrook v. State, 6 Md.	1	1971–1971
Mayor of Baltimore v. Linthicum green md · 1936 2 sentences 1956Baltimore v. Linthicum, supra. As was said in that case in speaking of a similar provision in the Baltimore City ordinance ( 170 Md. at page 249 , 183 A. at page 533 ) : “For the decision of this case we need not determine exactly what was within the contemplation of the clause in its reference to subsequent submission of substantially the same application to the board of zoning appeals. 1956Baltimore v. Linthicum, supra. As was said in that case in speaking of a similar provision in the Baltimore City ordinance ( 170 Md. at page 249 , 183 A. at page 533 ) : “For the decision of this case we need not determine exactly what was within the contemplation of the clause in its reference to subsequent submission of substantially the same application to the board of zoning appeals.	1	1956–1956

Where else courts name it

MD 13 (1956–2015) TX 12 (1921–2015) FL 8 (1980–2026) NY 7 (1903–1992) CA 7 (1921–2014) AL 7 (1910–1992) PA 4 (1970–2002) NJ 4 (1968–2009) AZ 4 (1983–1993) MN 4 (1946–2016) VA 3 (1996–2012) WA 3 (1961–1966) IL 3 (1902–1995) GA 2 (1966–1976) OK 2 (1918–1956) LA 2 (1941–1949) UT 2 (1989–2005)

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