10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Royal Investment Group, LLC v. Wanggreen1 sentence2025Accordingly, we conclude that the October 18 ruling did not render any part of Father’s challenge to the Contempt Order moot. 20 proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” Royal Investment Group, LLC v. Wang, 183 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Flynn v. Maygreen1 sentence2022On April 9, 2020, the circuit court granted Father’s motion, in part, and ordered Mother to respond to Father’s discovery requests and produce any responsive documents no later than May 1, 2020 . | 1 | 1 |
Osztreicher v. Juanteguygreen1 sentence2021A. Preservation of the Issue on Appeal “[T]he right to appeal may be lost by acquiescence in, or recognition of, the validity of the decision below from which the appeal is taken or by otherwise taking a position which is inconsistent with the right of appeal.” In re Nicole B., 410 Md. 33, 64 (2009) (quoting Osztreicher v. Juanteguy, 338 Md. 528, 534 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Nicole B.green1 sentence2021A. Preservation of the Issue on Appeal “[T]he right to appeal may be lost by acquiescence in, or recognition of, the validity of the decision below from which the appeal is taken or by otherwise taking a position which is inconsistent with the right of appeal.” In re Nicole B., 410 Md. 33, 64 (2009) (quoting Osztreicher v. Juanteguy, 338 Md. 528, 534 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walter v. Gunter
green
2 sentences2018If, however, the order involves an interpretation and application of statutory or case law, we review the trial court's conclusions de novo , Walter , 367 Md. at 391 -92 , 788 A.2d 609 , and Father's challenge here falls into this latter category. 2018If, however, the order involves an interpretation and application of statutory or case law, we review the trial court's conclusions de novo , Walter , 367 Md. at 391 -92 , 788 A.2d 609 , and Father's challenge here falls into this latter category. | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Tandra S. v. Tyrone W.
green
2 sentences2016The Legislature had amended Section 5-1038 in reaction to this Court's decision in Tandra S. v. Tyrone W. 336 Md. 303 , 648 A.2d 439 (1994), a case in which we held that a father could not challenge an enrolled paternity judgment except upon a showing of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, even if a post-judgment blood test excluded him as the father or if the mother committed perjury in the original action. . 2016The Legislature had amended Section 5-1038 in reaction to this Court's decision in Tandra S. v. Tyrone W. 336 Md. 303 , 648 A.2d 439 (1994), a case in which we held that a father could not challenge an enrolled paternity judgment except upon a showing of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, even if a post-judgment blood test excluded him as the father or if the mother committed perjury in the original action. . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
E.N. v. T.R.
green
1 sentence2022Father asserts that the court in this case erred when “it substituted a finding of ‘exceptional 17 circumstances’ for the consent requirement which is a prerequisite to a finding of de facto parentage.” In refuting Father’s claim, the Fosters call attention to the recent decision by the Court of Appeals in E.N. v. T.R., 474 Md. 346 (2021), which, they contend, clarifies that the first prong of the test to determine whether de facto parentage has been established may be met by a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” In the alternative, the Fosters contend that “implicit consent can clearly be | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2019In his motion, he claimed that the in banc panel lacked jurisdiction to review Mother’s appeal pursuant to State v. Phillips, 457 Md. 481 (2018), because Mother’s Notice for In Banc Review “listed no points or questions to be reviewed and gave no reasons why the Contempt Order was incorrect.” The in banc panel denied Father’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and ultimately vacated the contempt order as well as the circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees. 2019She filed her in banc memorandum on June 4, 2018, and Father filed his 2 memorandum on June 25, 2018.1 On July 24, 2018, Father moved to dismiss Mother’s request for in banc review, asserting that the in banc panel had no jurisdiction because Mother’s Notice for In Banc Review “listed no points or questions to be reviewed and gave no reasons why the Contempt Order was incorrect.” Father based his motion to dismiss on a recently issued Court of Appeals opinion, State v. Phillips, 457 Md. 481 (2018), a decision that we will discuss at length infra. The in banc panel denied Father’s motion to dis | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Ware
green
1 sentence2017It is this court’s policy “not to reverse for harmless error.” In re: Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 616 , 819 A.2d 1030 (2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Yve S.
green
1 sentence2017It is this court’s policy “not to reverse for harmless error.” In re: Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 616 , 819 A.2d 1030 (2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rose v. Gedeon (In Re Gedeon)
green
1 sentence2006In In re Gedeon, 31 B.R. 942 (Bankr.D.Colo.1983), the bankruptcy court first determined that the attorney’s fee award of $75,000 was non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(5), as alimony, maintenance, or support for a former spouse or child of the debtor. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.