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 1932–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawks v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac 2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac | 2 | 3 |
Johns v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac 2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac | 2 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The Court explained in Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25 , 145 A.2d 234 (1958), that “the remedy is not broad enough to reach every case in which there has been an erroneous or unjust judgment, on the sole ground that no other remedy exists, but it must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, *61 and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 27-28 , 145 A.2d 234 (citation omitted). 2002The Court explained in Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25 , 145 A.2d 234 (1958), that “the remedy is not broad enough to reach every case in which there has been an erroneous or unjust judgment, on the sole ground that no other remedy exists, but it must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, *61 and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 27-28 , 145 A.2d 234 (citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac 2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac | 1 | 3 |
Oliver v. Graygreen1 sentence2011Similarly, in Oliver v. Gray, 1 H. & G. 204, 218 (1827), the Court of Appeals said: The Act of Limitations, according to the received construction, proceeds upon the supposition, that from length of time the debt is paid, and was only intended to protect a party where the presumption arising from lapse of time is, either, that the debt has been discharged, or never existed, and not to protect him from a debt acknowledged by himself to be still due and unpaid, with no other excuse for not paying it than the supposed bar created by the Act. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Morgangreen2 sentences2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief 2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief | 1 | 1 |
Bridendolph v. Zellers' Executorsgreen1 sentence2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Accordingly it is stated as a general rule that the writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct an issue of fact *70 which has been adjudicated, even though wrongly determined; nor for alleged false testimony at the trial; nor on the ground that a juror swore falsely as to his qualification; nor for newly discovered evidence.” See Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318, 333 (1882) (a leading coram nobis case, cited with approval by this Court in Keane, 164 Md. at 692 , 166 A. at 412 , in which the Supreme Court of Indiana directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in a criminal case because | 1 | 1 |
Gorsuch v. Rutledgegreen2 sentences1976See Gorsuch v. Rutledge, 70 Md. 272, 276 , 17 A. 76 (1889); Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 1, 14 (1851). *618 Ill Appellants also assign a supposed error in the instruction given to the jury by the trial court. 1976See Gorsuch v. Rutledge, 70 Md. 272, 276 , 17 A. 76 (1889); Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 1, 14 (1851). *618 Ill Appellants also assign a supposed error in the instruction given to the jury by the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Boremangreen1 sentence1976See Gorsuch v. Rutledge, 70 Md. 272, 276 , 17 A. 76 (1889); Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 1, 14 (1851). *618 Ill Appellants also assign a supposed error in the instruction given to the jury by the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keane v. State
green
2 sentences2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief 2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief | 3 | 1998–2005 |
Skok v. State
green
2 sentences2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief 2005In other words, the writ provided a remedy in situations “in which the supposed error inhere[d] in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial, and unknown to the court when the judgment was entered, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment.” Id. at 69, 760 A.2d 647 (quoting Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 692 , 166 A. 410 (1933)). *678 In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of coram nobis relief to include errors of law, stating that a person who meets the requirements for coram nobis relief “should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief | 2 | 2002–2005 |
Bernard v. State
green
2 sentences2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac 2000Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685, 689 , 166 A. 410 ; Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1 , 65 A.2d 297 .” See also, e.g., Jackson v. State, 218 Md. 25, 28 , 145 A.2d 234, 235 (1958) (coram nobis “ ‘must be confined to cases in which the supposed error inheres in facts not actually in issue under the pleadings at the trial’ ”); Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218, 221 , 140 A.2d 56, 57 (1958); Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336 , 138 A.2d 372, 373 (1958) (“either the writ of error coram nobis or proper motion is available, in both civil and criminal cases without limitation as to time, to bring before the court fac | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Armstead
green
1 sentence2018Armstead , 235 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2000The majority has effectively taken Petitioner’s bait, see Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, 360 Md. 387 , 758 A.2d 124 (2000)(dissenting opinion fn. 1), based upon a series of dissents, and has now transformed the law into what was not previously the law of Maryland, thus allowing a non-majority principle to triumph over past majority decisions of this Court. 2000The majority has effectively taken Petitioner’s bait, see Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, 360 Md. 387 , 758 A.2d 124 (2000)(dissenting opinion fn. 1), based upon a series of dissents, and has now transformed the law into what was not previously the law of Maryland, thus allowing a non-majority principle to triumph over past majority decisions of this Court. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Madison v. State
green
2 sentences1998See also Hawks v. State, 162 Md. 30 [ 157 A. 900 (1932)]; Bernard, v. State, 193 Md. 1 [ 65 A.2d 297 (1949)]; Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425 [ 109 A.2d 96 (1954)]; Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333 [ 138 A.2d 372 (1958)]; Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218 [ 140 A.2d 56 (1954)]. 1998See also Hawks v. State, 162 Md. 30 [ 157 A. 900 (1932)]; Bernard, v. State, 193 Md. 1 [ 65 A.2d 297 (1949)]; Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425 [ 109 A.2d 96 (1954)]; Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333 [ 138 A.2d 372 (1958)]; Johns v. State, 216 Md. 218 [ 140 A.2d 56 (1954)]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Haney v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1983As long ago as 1856, in Haney v. Marshall, 9 Md. 194 (1856), this Court said: *154 "The defendant's counsel insists, that even if this objection to the prayer is a valid one, when considered without reference to the instruction given in lieu of the first prayer, yet, as that instruction gave the law correctly to the jury, upon the same subject, there can be no reversal on account of the supposed error in the prayer. 1983As long ago as 1856, in Haney v. Marshall, 9 Md. 194 (1856), this Court said: "The defendant’s counsel insists, that even if this objection to the prayer is a valid one, when considered without reference to the instruction given in lieu of the first prayer, yet, as that instruction gave the law correctly to the jury, upon the same subject, there can be no reversal on account of the supposed error in the prayer. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. State ex rel. Board of Police
green
1 sentence1932Baltimore v. Howard, 15 Md. 376 ; Altvater v. Baltimore, 31 Md. 462 ; Mitchell v. Lemon, 34 Md. 176 ." In this case the officers making the arrest received information relative to the supposed violation of the lottery laws at 1716 Brunt Street, the home of Gorman. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Altvater v. Mayor of Baltimore
green
1 sentence1932Baltimore v. Howard, 15 Md. 376 ; Altvater v. Baltimore, 31 Md. 462 ; Mitchell v. Lemon, 34 Md. 176 ." In this case the officers making the arrest received information relative to the supposed violation of the lottery laws at 1716 Brunt Street, the home of Gorman. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Mitchell v. Lemon
green
1 sentence1932Baltimore v. Howard, 15 Md. 376 ; Altvater v. Baltimore, 31 Md. 462 ; Mitchell v. Lemon, 34 Md. 176 ." In this case the officers making the arrest received information relative to the supposed violation of the lottery laws at 1716 Brunt Street, the home of Gorman. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.