13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . 2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . 2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . | 3 | 3 |
Randall S. Rothwellgreen1 sentence2020See Rothwell, 294 P.3d at 1150 (improper exclusion of character evidence that defendant was trustworthy with children was harmless, given its marginal probative value); McAlpin, 812 P.2d at 577-78 (erroneous exclusion of opinion evidence that defendant was not a person given to lewd conduct was harmless under a reasonable probability standard); Hallman, 379 S.E.2d at 117 (erroneous exclusion of evidence of defendant’s reputation for “morality” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the character witnesses 36 testified that defendant had a good reputation for truth and veracity, which su | 1 | 1 |
People v. McAlpingreen1 sentence2020See Rothwell, 294 P.3d at 1150 (improper exclusion of character evidence that defendant was trustworthy with children was harmless, given its marginal probative value); McAlpin, 812 P.2d at 577-78 (erroneous exclusion of opinion evidence that defendant was not a person given to lewd conduct was harmless under a reasonable probability standard); Hallman, 379 S.E.2d at 117 (erroneous exclusion of evidence of defendant’s reputation for “morality” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the character witnesses 36 testified that defendant had a good reputation for truth and veracity, which su | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallmangreen1 sentence2020See Rothwell, 294 P.3d at 1150 (improper exclusion of character evidence that defendant was trustworthy with children was harmless, given its marginal probative value); McAlpin, 812 P.2d at 577-78 (erroneous exclusion of opinion evidence that defendant was not a person given to lewd conduct was harmless under a reasonable probability standard); Hallman, 379 S.E.2d at 117 (erroneous exclusion of evidence of defendant’s reputation for “morality” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the character witnesses 36 testified that defendant had a good reputation for truth and veracity, which su | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Curtis Morrison v. Mark Peterson
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . 2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . | 3 | 2001–2005 |
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
1 sentence2025“As with all applications of the Strickland test, the question whether a given defendant has made the requisite showing will turn on the facts of the particular case.” Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 485 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Syed
green
1 sentence2021However, for the reasons that we have explained, additional information would not have supported Coale’s contention that his IAD rights had been violated. - 48 - significant possibility that the [outcome of the proceeding] would have been affected.” Id. at 86–77. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wallace v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Conyers v. State
green
2 sentences2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . 2005"This Court has interpreted the reasonable probability standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to mean a 'substantial possibility that ... the result of [the] trial would have been any different.' ” Conyers, 367 Md. at 598-99 , 790 A.2d at 31 , citing State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160, 190 , 599 A.2d 1171, 1185 (1992); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 426-27 , 578 A.2d 734, 739 (1990). 5 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Olson v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 260 , 54 S.Ct. at 711 , 78 L.Ed. at 1247 . *45 The reasonable probability rule illustrated by Olson is primarily manifested in the decisions of Maryland appellate courts in condemnation cases in which the condemnee seeks to have the property valued on the basis of a higher use than that for which the property is zoned at the time of the taking. 2001Id. at 260 , 54 S.Ct. at 711 , 78 L.Ed. at 1247 . *45 The reasonable probability rule illustrated by Olson is primarily manifested in the decisions of Maryland appellate courts in condemnation cases in which the condemnee seeks to have the property valued on the basis of a higher use than that for which the property is zoned at the time of the taking. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State Roads Commission v. Warriner
green
1 sentence1989(Emphasis added). 211 Md. at 486-87 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1982Prior to Chapman v. *283 California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967), the Court of Appeals traditionally applied the same test in criminal causes as in civil actions whether there was a reasonable probability that the error may have affected the determination of the case. 1982Prior to Chapman v. *283 California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967), the Court of Appeals traditionally applied the same test in criminal causes as in civil actions whether there was a reasonable probability that the error may have affected the determination of the case. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.