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 1983–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warrick v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162, 173 (1985); State v. Deleon, 143 Md. 2024See Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162, 173 (1985); State v. Deleon, 143 Md. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Deleongreen2 sentences2024See Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162, 173 (1985); State v. Deleon, 143 Md. 2024See Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162, 173 (1985); State v. Deleon, 143 Md. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. John Crane, Inc.green2 sentences2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince 2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince | 1 | 1 |
Devincentz v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince 2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Bursongreen2 sentences2024“We review the trial and intermediate appellate courts’ legal conclusions, however, nondeferentially.” Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232, 243 , 35 A.3d 452, 459 (2011). 2024“We review the trial and intermediate appellate courts’ legal conclusions, however, nondeferentially.” Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232, 243 , 35 A.3d 452, 459 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Dackman v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2020Sanctions for Discovery Violations Standard of Review We “review[] for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to impose, or not impose, a sanction for a discovery violation.” Dackman v. Robinson, 464 Md. 189, 231 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Fabian v. Normangreen2 sentences1992In Fabian v. Norman, 138 Ill.App.3d 507 , 93 Ill.Dec. 234, 238 , 486 N.E.2d 335, 339 (2 Dist.1985), the appellate court of Illinois, referring to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), opined that [the Rule] authorizes the court to impose sanctions, including an order striking the pleadings and entering judgment, if a party refuses to comply with the discovery rules____ The purpose of sanctions is to promote discovery and not to punish the noncomplying party____ The question of the appropriate sanction, if any, is within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on 1992In Fabian v. Norman, 138 Ill.App.3d 507 , 93 Ill.Dec. 234, 238 , 486 N.E.2d 335, 339 (2 Dist.1985), the appellate court of Illinois, referring to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), opined that [the Rule] authorizes the court to impose sanctions, including an order striking the pleadings and entering judgment, if a party refuses to comply with the discovery rules____ The purpose of sanctions is to promote discovery and not to punish the noncomplying party____ The question of the appropriate sanction, if any, is within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on | 1 | 1 |
Hinkle v. Sam Blanken & Co., Inc.green1 sentence1992In Fabian v. Norman, 138 Ill.App.3d 507 , 93 Ill.Dec. 234, 238 , 486 N.E.2d 335, 339 (2 Dist.1985), the appellate court of Illinois, referring to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), opined that [the Rule] authorizes the court to impose sanctions, including an order striking the pleadings and entering judgment, if a party refuses to comply with the discovery rules____ The purpose of sanctions is to promote discovery and not to punish the noncomplying party____ The question of the appropriate sanction, if any, is within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jake H. Davis, Jr., Barry Gene Spence, Lloyd D. Murray and Honorio Montanezgreen2 sentences1983United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239, 243 (5th Cir.1981) ("We hold, therefore, that the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment forbids the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules or orders against criminal defendants). 1983United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 1981) ("We hold, therefore, that the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment forbids the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules or orders against criminal defendants). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scully v. Tauber
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 430-31 . 2022Id. at 430-31 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Alarcon-Ozoria v. State
green
2 sentences2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince 2024Therefore, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion a circuit court’s decision to impose, or not impose a sanction for a discovery violation.” Alarcon-Ozoria v. State, 477 Md. 75 , 90–91, 266 A.3d 313 , 321 (2021) (cleaned up). “[A]n abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional, or most egregious case.” Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199 , 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005). “[T]he [circuit] court’s decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the 21 fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.” Devince | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Taliaferro v. State
green
2 sentences1998The guidelines that assist a judge in exercising discretion with respect to a sanction for a discovery violation were well spelled out in the opinion by Judge Rodowsky for the Court of Appeals in Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376, 390-91 , 456 A.2d 29 (1983): Under the approach taken by most courts, whether the exclusion of ... testimony is an abuse of discretion turns on the facts of the particular case. 1998The guidelines that assist a judge in exercising discretion with respect to a sanction for a discovery violation were well spelled out in the opinion by Judge Rodowsky for the Court of Appeals in Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376, 390-91 , 456 A.2d 29 (1983): Under the approach taken by most courts, whether the exclusion of ... testimony is an abuse of discretion turns on the facts of the particular case. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.