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 1917–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sard v. Hardygreen2 sentences2016A similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent — a doctrine that “follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient.” Mack v. Mack, 329 Md. 188, 210 , 618 A.2d 744 (1993) quoting Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432, 438-39 , 379 A.2d 1014 (1977). 2016A similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent — a doctrine that “follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient.” Mack v. Mack, 329 Md. 188, 210 , 618 A.2d 744 (1993) quoting Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432, 438-39 , 379 A.2d 1014 (1977). | 4 | 8 |
Kastigar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Testimonial Privileges Generally Are Disfavored To place the issue, one involving the privilege for confidential spousal communications, in its proper framework, we begin with the universally recognized principle enunciated by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in 1742 that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” 13 Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 443 , 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1655 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 216 (1972); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626, 644 (1972). 2002Testimonial Privileges Generally Are Disfavored To place the issue, one involving the privilege for confidential spousal communications, in its proper framework, we begin with the universally recognized principle enunciated by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in 1742 that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” 13 Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 443 , 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1655 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 216 (1972); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626, 644 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
Branzburg v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2002Testimonial Privileges Generally Are Disfavored To place the issue, one involving the privilege for confidential spousal communications, in its proper framework, we begin with the universally recognized principle enunciated by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in 1742 that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” 13 Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 443 , 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1655 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 216 (1972); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626, 644 (1972). 2002Testimonial Privileges Generally Are Disfavored To place the issue, one involving the privilege for confidential spousal communications, in its proper framework, we begin with the universally recognized principle enunciated by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in 1742 that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” 13 Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 443 , 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1655 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 216 (1972); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626, 644 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
MacK v. MacKgreen2 sentences2020Williams v. Wilzack, 319 Md. 485, 508 (1990).15 Thus, § 10-708 provides multiple procedural safeguards before the Department may involuntarily administer such medication to Mr. Johnson and others who are similarly situated.16 We now consider the risk that, notwithstanding those safeguards, 15 As we explained in Allmond, “[a] similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent—a doctrine that ‘follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non- emergency circumstances, cannot properly underta 2016A similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent — a doctrine that “follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient.” Mack v. Mack, 329 Md. 188, 210 , 618 A.2d 744 (1993) quoting Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432, 438-39 , 379 A.2d 1014 (1977). | 1 | 4 |
Williams v. Wilzackgreen1 sentence2020Williams v. Wilzack, 319 Md. 485, 508 (1990).15 Thus, § 10-708 provides multiple procedural safeguards before the Department may involuntarily administer such medication to Mr. Johnson and others who are similarly situated.16 We now consider the risk that, notwithstanding those safeguards, 15 As we explained in Allmond, “[a] similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent—a doctrine that ‘follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non- emergency circumstances, cannot properly underta | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.green1 sentence1977Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N. W. 12, 15 (1905); see McClees v. Cohen, 158 Md. 60, 62-63 , 148 A. 124 (1930); Powell, Consent to Operative Procedures, 21 Md. | 1 | 1 |
McClees v. Cohengreen2 sentences1977Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N. W. 12, 15 (1905); see McClees v. Cohen, 158 Md. 60, 62-63 , 148 A. 124 (1930); Powell, Consent to Operative Procedures, 21 Md. 1977Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N. W. 12, 15 (1905); see McClees v. Cohen, 158 Md. 60, 62-63 , 148 A. 124 (1930); Powell, Consent to Operative Procedures, 21 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allmond v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
green
1 sentence2020Williams v. Wilzack, 319 Md. 485, 508 (1990).15 Thus, § 10-708 provides multiple procedural safeguards before the Department may involuntarily administer such medication to Mr. Johnson and others who are similarly situated.16 We now consider the risk that, notwithstanding those safeguards, 15 As we explained in Allmond, “[a] similar interest is recognized in the common law under the doctrine of informed consent—a doctrine that ‘follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non- emergency circumstances, cannot properly underta | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Reed v. Campagnolo
green
2 sentences2005Subsequently, in Reed v. Campagnolo, 332 Md. 226 , 630 A.2d 1145 (1993), we noted that “one’s informed consent must be to some treatment.” Reed, 332 Md. at 241 , 630 A.2d at 1152 . 2005Subsequently, in Reed v. Campagnolo, 332 Md. 226 , 630 A.2d 1145 (1993), we noted that “one’s informed consent must be to some treatment.” Reed, 332 Md. at 241 , 630 A.2d at 1152 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mohr v. Williams
green
1 sentence1977Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N. W. 12, 15 (1905); see McClees v. Cohen, 158 Md. 60, 62-63 , 148 A. 124 (1930); Powell, Consent to Operative Procedures, 21 Md. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
McDowell v. Goldsmith
green
1 sentence1917McDowell v. Goldsmith, 2 Md. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.