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.
11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77 , 870 A.2d 186, 193 (2005) (quoting Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387 , 835 A.2d 1221, 1226 (2003)). 2016Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77 , 870 A.2d 186, 193 (2005) (quoting Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387 , 835 A.2d 1221, 1226 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Kushell v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2016Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77 , 870 A.2d 186, 193 (2005) (quoting Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387 , 835 A.2d 1221, 1226 (2003)). 2016Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77 , 870 A.2d 186, 193 (2005) (quoting Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387 , 835 A.2d 1221, 1226 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kiddgreen1 sentence2003The prosecution is not permitted to use tainted evidence to impeach an issue which it first solicited on cross-examination.”); see also id. at 49, 375 A.2d 1105 (“We also construe Harris and Hass as limiting the impeachment exception to the specific credibility of the defendant on matters as to which there is a contradiction between his testimony and *342 the impeaching statement. | 1 | 1 |
Robert PROBUS and Geneva Probus, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. K-MART, INC., and Keller Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appelleesgreen1 sentence1997See Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir.1986); Public Service Co. v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 773 F.2d 783 (7th Cir.1985). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 708248green1 sentence1996See, e.g., Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201 , 1207-1208 (11th Cir.1995); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir.1992); Kelly v. Crown Equipment Co., 970 F.2d 1273 (3rd Cir.1992); Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1 |
Benjamin Harrison and Rosalind Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck and Company and Emerson Electric Companygreen1 sentence1996See, e.g., Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201 , 1207-1208 (11th Cir.1995); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir.1992); Kelly v. Crown Equipment Co., 970 F.2d 1273 (3rd Cir.1992); Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Alexandergreen2 sentences1988See In re Alexander, 16 Md.App. 416, 418 , 297 A.2d 301, 302 (1972) (“This impeachment rule itself arose in substantial amelioration of the former common law rule barring as a witness any person convicted of an infamous crime.”); see generally McCormick on Evidence § 43, at 93 (E. 1988See In re Alexander, 16 Md.App. 416, 418 , 297 A.2d 301, 302 (1972) (“This impeachment rule itself arose in substantial amelioration of the former common law rule barring as a witness any person convicted of an infamous crime.”); see generally McCormick on Evidence § 43, at 93 (E. | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Stategreen1 sentence1972In Burgess v. State, 16 Md. 162 , 169, 155 A. 153, 156 (1931), it was stated: “It is established in this State that in criminal cases, where the defendant is a witness in his own behalf, he thereby puts his character in issue, and may be asked on cross-examination if he has been convicted of crime.” This impeachment rule itself arose in substantial amelioration of the former common law rule barring as a witness any person convicted of infamous crime. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
green
1 sentence2021Distinct from other sorts of troubling behavior, “racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns” such that barring corrective action through the impeachment rule “would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Porter v. State
green
2 sentences2018Did the Court of Special Appeals misapply the harmless error standard, as recently reiterated by this Court in Porter v. State , 455 Md. 220 , 166 A.3d 1044 (2017), in finding that the trial court's errors in permitting the impeachment of a defense witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? 2018Did the Court of Special Appeals misapply the harmless error standard, as recently reiterated by this Court in Porter v. State , 455 Md. 220 , 166 A.3d 1044 (2017), in finding that the trial court's errors in permitting the impeachment of a defense witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Watson v. State
green
1 sentence2000Watson was decided on the same day as Prout , and in Watson the Court said that attempted rape was not a felony at common law or a crimen falsi, and thus was not an “infamous crime.” 311 Md. at 375, 535 A.2d 455 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Goff
green
1 sentence1997Because, the court said, the exception was created "to protect a plaintiff from an aggressive defendant attempting to manipulate the exclusionary nature of the rule for his own advantage, it follows that a plaintiff who is on the offensive should not be allowed to manipulate the impeachment exception in order to introduce evidence for purposes otherwise inadmissible.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., and Riley Stoker Corporation, Cross-Appellees v. Bath Iron Works Corporation, Cross-Appellant
green
1 sentence1997See Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir.1986); Public Service Co. v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 773 F.2d 783 (7th Cir.1985). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Forrest A. Flaminio and Gloria Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., a Japanese Corporation
green
1 sentence1996See, e.g., Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201 , 1207-1208 (11th Cir.1995); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir.1992); Kelly v. Crown Equipment Co., 970 F.2d 1273 (3rd Cir.1992); Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Joseph Kelly and Cynthia Kelly v. Crown Equipment Company
green
1 sentence1996See, e.g., Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201 , 1207-1208 (11th Cir.1995); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir.1992); Kelly v. Crown Equipment Co., 970 F.2d 1273 (3rd Cir.1992); Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Braxton v. State
green
2 sentences1983The appellant seeks solace in dicta found in Braxton v. State, 11 Md.App. 435, 439 , 274 A.2d 647 (1971): "As distinguished from the limited concept of character within the impeachment rule as relating only to credibility, a defendant may always offer evidence of his good character and to prove that his character was such as to make it unlikely that he would have committed the act charged against him. 1983The appellant seeks solace in dicta found in Braxton v. State, 11 Md.App. 435, 439 , 274 A.2d 647 (1971): "As distinguished from the limited concept of character within the impeachment rule as relating only to credibility, a defendant may always offer evidence of his good character and to prove that his character was such as to make it unlikely that he would have committed the act charged against him. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Spencer v. Texas
green
1 sentence1979This Court, relying heavily on Spencer v. Texas, supra, rejected a variety of Constitutional challenges to the impeachment rule in Nance v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Nance v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1979App. 433 (1969), cert. den., *154 256 Md. 747 (1970), cert. den., 398 U. S. 954 (1970). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Nance v. State
green
1 sentence1979This Court, relying heavily on Spencer v. Texas, supra, rejected a variety of Constitutional challenges to the impeachment rule in Nance v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.