11 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Ass'n v. Montgomery County Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2012Reiterating the fact that the purpose of the signature requirement in § 6-203(a)(l) is to provide a personal attestation to the information contained in the entry, we restated our conclusion in Barnes “that the signature provided under § 6-203(a)(1) is but one of many pieces of identifying information that the Board must assess to determine the validity of a petition entry.” Fire-Rescue, 418 Md. at 479-80 , 15 A.3d at 807-08 . 2012Reiterating the fact that the purpose of the signature requirement in § 6-203(a)(l) is to provide a personal attestation to the information contained in the entry, we restated our conclusion in Barnes “that the signature provided under § 6-203(a)(1) is but one of many pieces of identifying information that the Board must assess to determine the validity of a petition entry.” Fire-Rescue, 418 Md. at 479-80 , 15 A.3d at 807-08 . | 1 | 3 |
Robinson v. Leegreen1 sentence2022Citing to Robinson v. Lee, 317 Md. 371, 379-80 (1989), and Maryland Rule 4- 346(a),3 Mr. Bustillo further argued that because he had the right to be accurately apprised of his sentence at the sentencing hearing, the subsequent addition of probation violated his right to fundamental fairness. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 593257green1 sentence2014See Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir.2013) (a minute sheet was not a separate document because it was not captioned as an order, not signed, and did not establish the disposition of the claim on its face); Silver Star Enterprises, Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008 (5th Cir.1994) (same); Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1992) (the signature by the clerk is one element required for a minute order to constitute a separate document under Rule 58). *498 The Third and Seventh Circuits have developed tests for determining whether a document sati | 1 | 1 |
Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir.2013) (a minute sheet was not a separate document because it was not captioned as an order, not signed, and did not establish the disposition of the claim on its face); Silver Star Enterprises, Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008 (5th Cir.1994) (same); Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1992) (the signature by the clerk is one element required for a minute order to constitute a separate document under Rule 58). *498 The Third and Seventh Circuits have developed tests for determining whether a document sati | 1 | 1 |
Dail v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Van Meter v. Van Meter, 183 Md. 614, 618 , 39 A.2d 752, 754 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
Orthodox Jewish Council of Baltimore, Inc. v. Abramsongreen1 sentence2012Second, although the underlying purpose of the signature requirement in both the wills and voter petition contexts is the prevention of fraud, see Slack v. Truitt, 368 Md. 2, 12-13 , 791 A.2d 129, 135 (2002) (noting that the presence of the signatures on a will creates a presumption of validity); Md.Code (2002, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Election Law Article, § 6-204(b), there is an additional safeguard present in the referendum context. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dashiell v. Meeks
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 166-67 , 913 A.2d at 20 . 2015Id. at 166-67 , 913 A.2d at 20 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Silver Star Enterprises, Inc. v. M/v Saramacca, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., in Rem
green
1 sentence2014See Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir.2013) (a minute sheet was not a separate document because it was not captioned as an order, not signed, and did not establish the disposition of the claim on its face); Silver Star Enterprises, Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008 (5th Cir.1994) (same); Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1992) (the signature by the clerk is one element required for a minute order to constitute a separate document under Rule 58). *498 The Third and Seventh Circuits have developed tests for determining whether a document sati | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Barnes v. State, Ex Rel. Pinkney
green
2 sentences2012Pinkney, 236 Md. 564 , 204 A.2d 787 (1964),] “that the signature provided under § 6-203(a)(l) is but one of many pieces of identifying information that the Board must assess to determine the validity of a petition entry.” Fire-Rescue, 418 Md. at 479-80 , 15 A.3d at 807-08 . 2012Pinkney, 236 Md. 564 , 204 A.2d 787 (1964),] “that the signature provided under § 6-203(a)(l) is but one of many pieces of identifying information that the Board must assess to determine the validity of a petition entry.” Fire-Rescue, 418 Md. at 479-80 , 15 A.3d at 807-08 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Van Meter v. Van Meter
green
1 sentence2012Van Meter v. Van Meter, 183 Md. 614, 618 , 39 A.2d 752, 754 (1944). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Slack v. Truitt
green
1 sentence2012Second, although the underlying purpose of the signature requirement in both the wills and voter petition contexts is the prevention of fraud, see Slack v. Truitt, 368 Md. 2, 12-13 , 791 A.2d 129, 135 (2002) (noting that the presence of the signatures on a will creates a presumption of validity); Md.Code (2002, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Election Law Article, § 6-204(b), there is an additional safeguard present in the referendum context. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Drury v. Young
green
2 sentences2004At oral argument, appellants argued that our case of Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546 (1882), which held that a printed letterhead on a memorandum was sufficient to satisfy the signature requirement of the statute of frauds, is analogous to the University System institutions sending appellants their bills printed with the institutions’ seal. 2004At oral argument, appellants argued that our case of Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546 (1882), which held that a printed letterhead on a memorandum was sufficient to satisfy the signature requirement of the statute of frauds, is analogous to the University System institutions sending appellants their bills printed with the institutions' seal. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Patriot Party of Pennsylvania v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2003The Patriot Party, 826 F.Supp. at 934 . 2003The Patriot Party, 826 F.Supp. at 934 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ross v. State
green
1 sentence1977The State, with an obvious view to Ross v. State, 276 Md. at 670 , argues that the four offenses “were so nearly identical in method as to earmark the commission of those robberies as the handiwork of the Appellant.” The signature exception has been described in this manner in C. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Barnes v. Syester
green
1 sentence1924Plater v. Groome, 3 Md. 134 ; Tilghman v. Steuart, 4 H. & J. 156 ; Barnes v. Syester, 14 Md. 507 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Tilghman v. Steuart
neutral
1 sentence1924Plater v. Groome, 3 Md. 134 ; Tilghman v. Steuart, 4 H. & J. 156 ; Barnes v. Syester, 14 Md. 507 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Plater v. Groome
neutral
1 sentence1924Plater v. Groome, 3 Md. 134 ; Tilghman v. Steuart, 4 H. & J. 156 ; Barnes v. Syester, 14 Md. 507 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia
green
1 sentence1914Patón, Jr.’ ” That is the case of Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 326 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.