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.
12 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Franklin P.green2 sentences2021See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266-67 (2000). 2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 | 5 | 6 |
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.green2 sentences2021See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266-67 (2000). 2003See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 , 394 A.2d 801, 804 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 , 406 A.2d 922, 925 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 , 725 A.2d 549 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature *634 and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 | 3 | 3 |
Clark v. Elzagreen2 sentences2021See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266-67 (2000). 2003See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 , 394 A.2d 801, 804 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 , 406 A.2d 922, 925 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 , 725 A.2d 549 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature *634 and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266-67 (2000). 2003See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 , 394 A.2d 801, 804 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 , 406 A.2d 922, 925 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 , 725 A.2d 549 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature *634 and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 | 3 | 3 |
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company v. BALTIMORE STEAM COMPANYgreen2 sentences2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 2006See also, e.g., In re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (“[I]n Maryland the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances”); In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001) (“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and ... each of the four elements must be met”); Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 657, 660-661 , 728 A.2d *87 210, 211-212 (1999); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143, 169 , 725 A.2d 549, 563 (1999). | 2 | 4 |
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Bowengreen2 sentences2017Significantly, "the four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met." Bowen , 410 Md. at 296 , 978 A.2d at 684 (citation and ellipsis omitted). 2017Significantly, "the four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met." Bowen , 410 Md. at 296 , 978 A.2d at 684 (citation and ellipsis omitted). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Foleygreen2 sentences2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 | 2 | 2 |
County Commissioners v. Schrodelgreen2 sentences2017In Schrodel , 320 Md. at 210 , 214 , 577 A.2d at 43 , 45 , this Court concluded that an order that had the effect of enjoining a county from proceeding with a condemnation action until the county obtained from the Maryland Department of the Environment a permit to construct a landfill on a certain property was appealable under the collateral order doctrine. 2017In Schrodel , 320 Md. at 210 , 214 , 577 A.2d at 43 , 45 , this Court concluded that an order that had the effect of enjoining a county from proceeding with a condemnation action until the county obtained from the Maryland Department of the Environment a permit to construct a landfill on a certain property was appealable under the collateral order doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 | 1 | 2 |
In Re KATERINE L. and Alex F.green1 sentence2025The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature, and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable, each of the four elements must be met. 220 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Bunting v. Stategreen2 sentences2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 | 1 | 1 |
Maryland Paper Products Co. v. Judsongreen2 sentences1981We observe that the lower court in the instant case, in its careful consideration of the "proximity” rule, applied the four elements of the exception found in 8 Schneider’s Workmen’s Compensation § 1724 (3d ed. 1951), which were quoted by the Court of Appeals in Maryland Paper Products Co. v. Judson, 215 Md. 577, 585 , 139 A.2d 219, 223 (1958), and by this Court in Stoskin v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 11 Md. 1981We observe that the lower court in the instant case, in its careful consideration of the "proximity” rule, applied the four elements of the exception found in 8 Schneider’s Workmen’s Compensation § 1724 (3d ed. 1951), which were quoted by the Court of Appeals in Maryland Paper Products Co. v. Judson, 215 Md. 577, 585 , 139 A.2d 219, 223 (1958), and by this Court in Stoskin v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 11 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Stoskin v. Bd. of Educ. Mont. Co.green2 sentences1981App. 355, 357 , 274 A.2d 397, 399 (1971), and in our opinion in Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, 30 Md. 1981We observe that the lower court in the instant case, in its careful consideration of the "proximity” rule, applied the four elements of the exception found in 8 Schneider’s Workmen’s Compensation § 1724 (3d ed. 1951), which were quoted by the Court of Appeals in Maryland Paper Products Co. v. Judson, 215 Md. 577, 585 , 139 A.2d 219, 223 (1958), and by this Court in Stoskin v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shoemaker v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021See Peat & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86, 92 (1978); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208, 213 (1979); Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999).” See In re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 (2001), where Judge Cathell for the Court recently emphasized: “The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” See also Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266-67 (2000). 2007“The four elements of the test are conjunctive in nature and in order for a prejudgment order to be appealable and to fall within this exception to the ordinary operation of the final judgment requirement, each of the four elements must be met.” In Re Franklin P., 366 Md. 306, 327 , 783 A.2d 673, 686 (2001). “[I]n Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.” In Re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634 , 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003) (citing Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 65 | 5 | 2003–2021 |
Bazzle v. State
green
2 sentences2012Bazzle, 426 Md. at 551 , 45 A.3d 166 (citation omitted). (b) Legally Adequate Provocation In State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 582 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010), the Court of Appeals explained the four elements of the defense of legally adequate provocation as follows: 1. 2012Bazzle, 426 Md. at 551 , 45 A.3d 166 (citation omitted). (b) Legally Adequate Provocation In State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 582 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010), the Court of Appeals explained the four elements of the defense of legally adequate provocation as follows: 1. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Rich
green
2 sentences2012Bazzle, 426 Md. at 551 , 45 A.3d 166 (citation omitted). (b) Legally Adequate Provocation In State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 582 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010), the Court of Appeals explained the four elements of the defense of legally adequate provocation as follows: 1. 2012Bazzle, 426 Md. at 551 , 45 A.3d 166 (citation omitted). (b) Legally Adequate Provocation In State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 582 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010), the Court of Appeals explained the four elements of the defense of legally adequate provocation as follows: 1. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences1990In Cox v. State, 311 Md. 326, 331 , 534 A.2d 1333 (1988), we defined voluntary manslaughter to include “intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.” In Whitehead v. State, 9 Md.App. 7, 11 , 262 A.2d 316 (1970), Judge Orth for the Court of Special Appeals set forth the four elements of the rule of provocation described by Professor Rollin M. 1990In Cox v. State, 311 Md. 326, 331 , 534 A.2d 1333 (1988), we defined voluntary manslaughter to include “intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.” In Whitehead v. State, 9 Md.App. 7, 11 , 262 A.2d 316 (1970), Judge Orth for the Court of Special Appeals set forth the four elements of the rule of provocation described by Professor Rollin M. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Whitehead v. State
green
2 sentences1990In Cox v. State, 311 Md. 326, 331 , 534 A.2d 1333 (1988), we defined voluntary manslaughter to include “intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.” In Whitehead v. State, 9 Md.App. 7, 11 , 262 A.2d 316 (1970), Judge Orth for the Court of Special Appeals set forth the four elements of the rule of provocation described by Professor Rollin M. 1990In Cox v. State, 311 Md. 326, 331 , 534 A.2d 1333 (1988), we defined voluntary manslaughter to include “intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.” In Whitehead v. State, 9 Md.App. 7, 11 , 262 A.2d 316 (1970), Judge Orth for the Court of Special Appeals set forth the four elements of the rule of provocation described by Professor Rollin M. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1981App. 355, 357 , 274 A.2d 397, 399 (1971), and in our opinion in Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, 30 Md. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.