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.
13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sutton v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In Sutton v. State, 289 Md. 359, 365-66, 424 A.2d 755 (1981), Judge Davidson explained for the Court of Appeals how closely a submission on an agreed statement of facts can resemble a guilty plea. [TJhe attorney for the petitioner tendered a plea of not guilty upon agreed facts. 2008In Sutton v. State, 289 Md. 359, 365-66, 424 A.2d 755 (1981), Judge Davidson explained for the Court of Appeals how closely a submission on an agreed statement of facts can resemble a guilty plea. [TJhe attorney for the petitioner tendered a plea of not guilty upon agreed facts. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See especially the excellent analysis and summary of the Strickland v. Washington test by Judge Orth in Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 695-701 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985). 2001See especially the excellent analysis and summary of the Strickland v. Washington test by Judge Orth in Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 695-701 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Bricker v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See, however, the excellent analysis of this checkered history by Judge Rosalyn Bell, in Bricker v. State, 80 Md.App. 532, 537-539 , 565 A.2d 340 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86 , 581 A.2d 9 (1990). 1991See, however, the excellent analysis of this checkered history by Judge Rosalyn Bell, in Bricker v. State, 80 Md.App. 532, 537-539 , 565 A.2d 340 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86 , 581 A.2d 9 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See also Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405, 426-427 , 439 A.2d 542 (1982). 5 . 1991See also Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405, 426-427 , 439 A.2d 542 (1982). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brickergreen2 sentences1991See, however, the excellent analysis of this checkered history by Judge Rosalyn Bell, in Bricker v. State, 80 Md.App. 532, 537-539 , 565 A.2d 340 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86 , 581 A.2d 9 (1990). 1991See, however, the excellent analysis of this checkered history by Judge Rosalyn Bell, in Bricker v. State, 80 Md.App. 532, 537-539 , 565 A.2d 340 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86 , 581 A.2d 9 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tocegreen2 sentences1986Adverse judicial rulings or prior judicial exposure to the parties or questions are not sufficient to establish personal bias or prejudice.” See also State v. Toce, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 192 , 269 A.2d 421, 422 (1969). 1986Adverse judicial rulings or prior judicial exposure to the parties or questions are not sufficient to establish personal bias or prejudice.” See also State v. Toce, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 192 , 269 A.2d 421, 422 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garramonegreen1 sentence1986An excellent analysis of bias, as a term of art within the contemplation of recusal requirements, is found in United States v. Garramone, 374 F.Supp. 256, 258 (E.D.Pa.1974): “The facts do not establish any personal bias or prejudice on the part of this Court____The affidavit must establish a bias or prejudice of an extra-judicial origin, a bias that has been acquired outside the four walls of the courtroom. | 1 | 1 |
Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., Incgreen1 sentence1965See also the helpful analysis of the American cases prior to 1950 in the opinion of Circuit Judge Clark for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. 183 F. 2d 811 (1950), cert. den. 340 U. S. 852 , 71 S. Ct. 80 , 95 L. | 1 | 1 |
Argonne Co. v. Hitaffergreen2 sentences1965See also the helpful analysis of the American cases prior to 1950 in the opinion of Circuit Judge Clark for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. 183 F. 2d 811 (1950), cert. den. 340 U. S. 852 , 71 S. Ct. 80 , 95 L. 1965See also the helpful analysis of the American cases prior to 1950 in the opinion of Circuit Judge Clark for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. 183 F. 2d 811 (1950), cert. den. 340 U. S. 852 , 71 S. Ct. 80 , 95 L. | 1 | 1 |
Public Service Co. v. Town of Skiatookgreen1 sentence1965See also the helpful analysis of the American cases prior to 1950 in the opinion of Circuit Judge Clark for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. 183 F. 2d 811 (1950), cert. den. 340 U. S. 852 , 71 S. Ct. 80 , 95 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matthews v. Stategreen2 sentences1974But see the excellent analysis by Judge Thompson in Matthews v. State, 8 Md. 1974App. 712, 715 , 261 A. 2d 804 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2013I respectfully dissent and would affirm the excellent analysis and decision of the Court of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, 206 Md.App. 180 , 47 A.3d 1038 (2012). 2013I respectfully dissent and would affirm the excellent analysis and decision of the Court of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, 206 Md.App. 180 , 47 A.3d 1038 (2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Barnes v. State
green
2 sentences2008For an excellent analysis of the difference between an agreed statement of facts and a stipulation as to testimony, the discussion by Chief Judge Orth for this Court in Barnes v. State, 31 Md.App. 25, 35 , 354 A.2d 499 (1976), is the Ur text. 2 . 2008For an excellent analysis of the difference between an agreed statement of facts and a stipulation as to testimony, the discussion by Chief Judge Orth for this Court in Barnes v. State, 31 Md.App. 25, 35 , 354 A.2d 499 (1976), is the Ur text. 2 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2001And see Judge Hollander’s comprehensive analysis in State v. Jones, 138 Md.App. 178, 204-09 , 771 A.2d 407 (2001). 2001And see Judge Hollander’s comprehensive analysis in State v. Jones, 138 Md.App. 178, 204-09 , 771 A.2d 407 (2001). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shepard v. United States
green
2 sentences1993In Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 22 , 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933), Justice Cardozo stated what we believe is an excellent principle to follow: “when the risk of confusion is so great as to upset the balance of advantage the evidence goes out.” In sum, in view of the highly inflammatory and prejudicial nature of this type of evidence, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit the testimony into evidence. 1993In Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 22 , 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933), Justice Cardozo stated what we believe is an excellent principle to follow: “when the risk of confusion is so great as to upset the balance of advantage the evidence goes out.” In sum, in view of the highly inflammatory and prejudicial nature of this type of evidence, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit the testimony into evidence. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences1992The excellent analysis by Judge Wilner in Taylor v. State, 52 Md.App. 500 , 450 A.2d 1312 (1982), involved such an indirect application of force. 1992The excellent analysis by Judge Wilner in Taylor v. State, 52 Md.App. 500 , 450 A.2d 1312 (1982), involved such an indirect application of force. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Shell v. State
green
2 sentences1990And see the very full and excellent analysis of voluntary intoxication and specific intent by Judge Eldridge in Shell v. State, 307 Md. 46 , 512 A.2d 358 (1986). 1990And see the very full and excellent analysis of voluntary intoxication and specific intent by Judge Eldridge in Shell v. State, 307 Md. 46 , 512 A.2d 358 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence1983In the alternative, the State argues that in computing the time for this rule, the days counted should only include those where the Defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of this court (i.e. the State does not want to include the' time between November 17, 1981 and January 11, 1982. 1 Judge Woods responded to these issues, with an excellent analysis of Irvin v. State, 276 Md. 168 (1975) and the interpretation placed on Irvin by this Court in State v. Armstrong, 46 Md. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Irvin v. State
green
1 sentence1983In the alternative, the State argues that in computing the time for this rule, the days counted should only include those where the Defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of this court (i.e. the State does not want to include the' time between November 17, 1981 and January 11, 1982. 1 Judge Woods responded to these issues, with an excellent analysis of Irvin v. State, 276 Md. 168 (1975) and the interpretation placed on Irvin by this Court in State v. Armstrong, 46 Md. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Glaubman
green
1 sentence1973An excellent analysis of the very different nature of this problem is found in People v. Glaubman, 485 P. 2d 711 (Colorado, 1971), wherein it was said at 716-717: “. . . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Household Finance Corp. v. Bridge
green
2 sentences1972We noted also in Summit Loans that Judge Finan, for the Court, in Household Finance Corp. v. Bridge, 252 Md. 531 , 250 A. 2d 878 (1969) had cited Carr with approval and in that opinion had provided an excellent analysis of the cases, law review articles and textbook comments in regard to oral invasion of privacy. 1972We noted also in Summit Loans that Judge Finan, for the Court, in Household Finance Corp. v. Bridge, 252 Md. 531 , 250 A. 2d 878 (1969) had cited Carr with approval and in that opinion had provided an excellent analysis of the cases, law review articles and textbook comments in regard to oral invasion of privacy. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Peter Igneri and Theresa Igneri v. Cie. De Transports Oceaniques
green
1 sentence1965See 3 Restatement of Torts, §695 which states: “A married *186 woman is not entitled to recover from one who, by his tortious conduct against her husband has become liable to him for illness or other bodily harm, for harm thereby caused to any of her marital interests or for any expense incurred in providing medical treatment for her husband.” See the excellent analysis of the American cases subsequent to 1950 and of the relevant law review articles in the opinion of Circuit Judge Friendly for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques, | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.