11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wengert v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). 2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Faulkner v. Stategreen2 sentences1992In support of this proposition, the State relies on our decision in Faulkner v. State, 317 Md. 441, 446 , 564 A.2d 785, 787 (1989), where we explained: “ ‘When we shift issues from that of Fourth Amendment satisfaction to that of Fourth Amendment applicability [i.e. standing], our criteria for measuring change dramatically. 1992In support of this proposition, the State relies on our decision in Faulkner v. State, 317 Md. 441, 446 , 564 A.2d 785, 787 (1989), where we explained: “ ‘When we shift issues from that of Fourth Amendment satisfaction to that of Fourth Amendment applicability [i.e. standing], our criteria for measuring change dramatically. | 1 | 1 |
Ruffin v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See Ruffin, 77 Md.App. at 101 -02 and n. 2, 549 A.2d at 415 and n. 2. 1989See Ruffin, 77 Md.App. at 101 -02 and n. 2, 549 A.2d at 415 and n. 2. | 1 | 1 |
McClain v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See, generally, McClain v. State, 288 Md. 456 (1980). 1982See, generally, McClain v. State, 288 Md. 456 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trusty v. State
green
2 sentences2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). 2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). | 2 | 1990–2002 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Manson v. Brathwaite
green
2 sentences2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Woratzeck v. Ricketts
green
1 sentence2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Detective DiSimone and Sergeant Newberg were not aware of anyone from the Baltimore City Police Department telling Mr. Lee that Mr. Small confessed to the crime. 11 The question presented, as framed by Petitioner, is: Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable? 12 Before this Court as amici curiae are the Innocence Project, Inc. and the University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic. 13 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 1 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2011The State did not even attempt to do so, in effect abandoning any argument that, assuming an improper inducement, Petitioner's subsequent statement was not made in reliance on it. [5] Furthermore, the State has not pointed to any facts suggesting that the taint of the improper inducement was cured by intervening attenuating circumstances, as was the case in Johnson v. State, 348 Md. 337 , 703 A.2d 1267 (1998). 2011The State did not even attempt to do so, in effect abandoning any argument that, assuming an improper inducement, Petitioner's subsequent statement was not made in reliance on it. [5] Furthermore, the State has not pointed to any facts suggesting that the taint of the improper inducement was cured by intervening attenuating circumstances, as was the case in Johnson v. State, 348 Md. 337 , 703 A.2d 1267 (1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Perez v. State
green
2 sentences2004Furthermore, because neither Williams, Hiligh, nor Facon had been decided at the time of the suppression hearing, id. at 27, 841 A.2d 372 , we were of the view that a new suppression hearing was required, so that the suppression court, as part of its totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to voluntariness, could determine whether the heavy weight standard applied "as a matter of law as well as fact." Id. at 28 , 841 A.2d 372 . 2004Furthermore, because neither Williams, Hiligh, nor Facon had been decided at the time of the suppression hearing, id. at 27, 841 A.2d 372 , we were of the view that a new suppression hearing was required, so that the suppression court, as part of its totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to voluntariness, could determine whether the heavy weight standard applied "as a matter of law as well as fact." Id. at 28 , 841 A.2d 372 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Burks v. State
green
2 sentences2003This Court itself was very clear as to the allocation of the burden of proof on the threshold issue of Fourth Amendment *663 coverage in Burks v. State, 96 Md.App. 173, 195 , 624 A.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 381 , 631 A.2d 451 (1993): The coverage of the Fourth Amendment is an issue that is analyzed objectively by the judge on the basis of all that is known at the time of the suppression hearing or of the trial. 2003This Court itself was very clear as to the allocation of the burden of proof on the threshold issue of Fourth Amendment *663 coverage in Burks v. State, 96 Md.App. 173, 195 , 624 A.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 381 , 631 A.2d 451 (1993): The coverage of the Fourth Amendment is an issue that is analyzed objectively by the judge on the basis of all that is known at the time of the suppression hearing or of the trial. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Leon
green
1 sentence2002Even if, arguendo, the probable cause showing here was marginally short (it was not), this would not have been an instance where the “affidavit [was] so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Buie v. State
green
2 sentences2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). 2002See Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 80 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001); Buie v. State, 320 Md. 696, 699 , 580 A.2d 167 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brooks v. State
green
2 sentences1990Brooks v. State, 320 Md. 516 , 578 A.2d 783 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). 1990Brooks v. State, 320 Md. 516 , 578 A.2d 783 (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Waugh v. State
green
2 sentences1979This distinguishes it from a case like Waugh v. State, 275 Md. 22 , 338 A. 2d 268 (1975), where the contradiction did not become apparent until after the suppression hearing had been concluded. 1979This distinguishes it from a case like Waugh v. State, 275 Md. 22 , 338 A. 2d 268 (1975), where the contradiction did not become apparent until after the suppression hearing had been concluded. | 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.