11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2011It elaborated upon a trial judge’s obligations with respect to jury instructions regarding issues of law as follows: *283 As this Court stated in Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 583 , 785 A.2d 348, 353 (2001), “[w]ith respect to the law to be applied in the case, when requested, it is the duty of the trial judge to instruct on the essential elements of the crime charged, any defenses supported by the evidence, and the burden of proof and presumption of innocence” (emphasis added). 2011It elaborated upon a trial judge’s obligations with respect to jury instructions regarding issues of law as follows: *283 As this Court stated in Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 583 , 785 A.2d 348, 353 (2001), “[w]ith respect to the law to be applied in the case, when requested, it is the duty of the trial judge to instruct on the essential elements of the crime charged, any defenses supported by the evidence, and the burden of proof and presumption of innocence” (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Billman v. State of Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corp.green2 sentences2007Fund Corp., 88 Md.App. 79, 111 , 593 A.2d 684, 699 (“[T]he issue has not been preserved because, neither in the pre-instruction conference, nor in exceptions taken after the jury had been charged, did appellants ask the court to distinguish in the burden of proof instruction between the various claims of the plaintiff.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 94 , 599 A.2d 447 (1991). 2007Fund Corp., 88 Md.App. 79, 111 , 593 A.2d 684, 699 (“[T]he issue has not been preserved because, neither in the pre-instruction conference, nor in exceptions taken after the jury had been charged, did appellants ask the court to distinguish in the burden of proof instruction between the various claims of the plaintiff.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 94 , 599 A.2d 447 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Casillasgreen2 sentences2002Id. at 877. 2002Id. at 877. | 1 | 1 |
Hardison v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 | 1 | 1 |
Sims v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 | 1 | 1 |
Binnie v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Poteet v. Sautergreen2 sentences2007But see Poteet v. Sauter, 136 Md.App. 383, 414-15 , 766 A.2d 150, 166-67 (2001) (finding non-preservation where appellee did not question preservation, and the Sims rule was not argued by the appellant). 2007But see Poteet v. Sauter, 136 Md.App. 383, 414-15 , 766 A.2d 150, 166-67 (2001) (finding non-preservation where appellee did not question preservation, and the Sims rule was not argued by the appellant). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stangl v. Todd
green
1 sentence1993Stangl v. Todd, 554 P.2d 1316 (Utah 1976), applies this burden of proof rule. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1980App. 195 , 364 A.2d 593 (1976), and in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A.2d 629 (1976), the new application of the burden of proof rule required by a post trial decision of the Supreme Court was not barred by either Rule 1085 or Rule 756(g) (now 757 (h)) nor need the error be of constitutional demensions [sic] to rise to the level of 'plain error’. 1980App. 195 , 364 A.2d 593 (1976), and in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A.2d 629 (1976), the new application of the burden of proof rule required by a post trial decision of the Supreme Court was not barred by either Rule 1085 or Rule 756(g) (now 757 (h)) nor need the error be of constitutional demensions [sic] to rise to the level of 'plain error’. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Teves v. State
neutral
1 sentence1980App. 195 , 364 A.2d 593 (1976), and in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A.2d 629 (1976), the new application of the burden of proof rule required by a post trial decision of the Supreme Court was not barred by either Rule 1085 or Rule 756(g) (now 757 (h)) nor need the error be of constitutional demensions [sic] to rise to the level of 'plain error’. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
1 sentence1976A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary because on appeal Edwards and Person urge us to reverse their convictions on the following grounds: 1) The allegedly improper use of a statement given by a State’s witness, James VanLandingham, to the police on July 1, 1974; and 2) the allegedly erroneous allocation of the burden of proof in violation of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Tillinghast v. Lamp
green
1 sentence1963Judge Offutt stated ( 168 Md. at 48 ) that an examination of the cases cited by the appellee husband showed that although they did not “deal with the question of the burden of proof or with confidential relations by name, nevertheless they [did] leave an implication contrary to the weight of authority elsewhere, that the marital status is not in itself sufficient to establish a confidential relationship.” He then continued: “But in the latest expression of this court, the rule recognized in this state, relating to transfers of property from a wife to her husband, is as stated in Hillwood v. Hi | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Thomas v. Pennsylvania Railroad
green
2 sentences1936Co., 162 Md. 509 , 160 A. 793 , it approved the principle that, as the statute stood originally, as it was amended, and as it now stands, the burden of proof rule embodied in it has no application to a case where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one ' of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule. 1936Co., 162 Md. 509 , 160 A. 793 , it approved the principle that, as the statute stood originally, as it was amended, and as it now stands, the burden of proof rule embodied in it has no application to a case where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one ' of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Beyer v. Decker
green
2 sentences1933So that, where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule, for it then falls within the reasoning of Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 , and other cases cited in Hygeia Ice Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 234 , 136 A. 548 ; Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289 , 150 A. 804 , and in States Engineering Company v. Harris, 157 Md. 488 , 146 A. 3 1933So that, where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule, for it then falls within the reasoning of Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 , and other cases cited in Hygeia Ice Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 234 , 136 A. 548 ; Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289 , 150 A. 804 , and in States Engineering Company v. Harris, 157 Md. 488 , 146 A. 3 | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Hygeia Ice & Coal Co. v. Schaeffer
green
1 sentence1933So that, where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule, for it then falls within the reasoning of Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 , and other cases cited in Hygeia Ice Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 234 , 136 A. 548 ; Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289 , 150 A. 804 , and in States Engineering Company v. Harris, 157 Md. 488 , 146 A. 3 | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Harrison v. Central Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1933So that, where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule, for it then falls within the reasoning of Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 , and other cases cited in Hygeia Ice Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 234 , 136 A. 548 ; Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289 , 150 A. 804 , and in States Engineering Company v. Harris, 157 Md. 488 , 146 A. 3 1933So that, where the facts are undisputed or conceded, and susceptible of no inference supporting appellant’s contention, or where they are disputed, but, whether proved or not, permit no inference supporting such contention, the question on appeal is one of law unaffected by the burden of proof rule, for it then falls within the reasoning of Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 , and other cases cited in Hygeia Ice Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 234 , 136 A. 548 ; Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289 , 150 A. 804 , and in States Engineering Company v. Harris, 157 Md. 488 , 146 A. 3 | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Catherman v. Ennis
neutral
2 sentences1933But, as pointed out by Judge Pattison in Catherman v. Ennis, 164 Md. 519 , 165 A. 482 , where the facts proved before the commission are susceptible of a construction supporting the decision of the commission as well as a construction adverse thereto, the appellant on appeal has theoretically the burden of showing that the commission drew the wrong inference, but that is more a rule of logic than of law. 1933But, as pointed out by Judge Pattison in Catherman v. Ennis, 164 Md. 519 , 165 A. 482 , where the facts proved before the commission are susceptible of a construction supporting the decision of the commission as well as a construction adverse thereto, the appellant on appeal has theoretically the burden of showing that the commission drew the wrong inference, but that is more a rule of logic than of law. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.