73 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr 2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr | 2 | 2 |
Michigan v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr 2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr | 2 | 2 |
State v. Standifurgreen2 sentences2023Additionally, although Mr. Blake’s reference to a purported request by Appellant for Mr. Blake to retrieve something from the “Pemberton” apartment was excised from the recording played at trial, the State explained at the motions hearing that this circumstance supported Mr. Blake’s explanation “throughout the interview . . . that the Pemberton residence was somewhere that the organization utilized to store controlled dangerous 41 substances.”17 Appellant acknowledges that corroboration by reference to other evidence is a proper means of proving trustworthiness, but stresses that the court was 2023Additionally, although Mr. Blake’s reference to a purported request by Appellant for Mr. Blake to retrieve something from the “Pemberton” apartment was excised from the recording played at trial, the State explained at the motions hearing that this circumstance supported Mr. Blake’s explanation “throughout the interview . . . that the Pemberton residence was somewhere that the organization utilized to store controlled dangerous 41 substances.” 17 Appellant acknowledges that corroboration by reference to other evidence is a proper means of proving trustworthiness, but stresses that the court wa | 2 | 2 |
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr 2023App. 147, 166-67 (1998); see also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529 , 566- 67, 574-75 & n.4 (2002) (Raker, J., concurring) (explaining that “it is important to keep in mind that the standards for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause are stricter than under the hearsay exception, requiring independent corroboration, while the hearsay exception under the rule does not.”). 11 The apparent confusion is demonstrated, for example, by the State’s comments at the motions hearing regarding the interplay between the Confrontation Clause and Rule 5- 804(b)(3)—specifically, the suggestion that “the confr | 2 | 2 |
Cruz v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2023Additionally, although Mr. Blake’s reference to a purported request by Appellant for Mr. Blake to retrieve something from the “Pemberton” apartment was excised from the recording played at trial, the State explained at the motions hearing that this circumstance supported Mr. Blake’s explanation “throughout the interview . . . that the Pemberton residence was somewhere that the organization utilized to store controlled dangerous 41 substances.”17 Appellant acknowledges that corroboration by reference to other evidence is a proper means of proving trustworthiness, but stresses that the court was 2023Additionally, although Mr. Blake’s reference to a purported request by Appellant for Mr. Blake to retrieve something from the “Pemberton” apartment was excised from the recording played at trial, the State explained at the motions hearing that this circumstance supported Mr. Blake’s explanation “throughout the interview . . . that the Pemberton residence was somewhere that the organization utilized to store controlled dangerous 41 substances.” 17 Appellant acknowledges that corroboration by reference to other evidence is a proper means of proving trustworthiness, but stresses that the court wa | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Baker v. State, 367 Md. 648, 688 (2002). 2 During the motions hearing, the motions court stated that the trial court “decided that manslaughter wouldn’t go to the jury . . . and deleted that from the verdict form, [the trial court] then said and explained at least on the record I saw, ‘I’m adding first degree assault.’” 2 unable to determine which modality the jury had accepted, or whether it had unanimously agreed upon either. 2022See Baker v. State, 367 Md. 648, 688 (2002). 2 During the motions hearing, the motions court stated that the trial court “decided that manslaughter wouldn’t go to the jury . . . and deleted that from the verdict form, [the trial court] then said and explained at least on the record I saw, ‘I’m adding first degree assault.’” 2 unable to determine which modality the jury had accepted, or whether it had unanimously agreed upon either. | 2 | 2 |
Argyrou v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587, 600 , 709 A.2d 1194, 1200 (1998); Yorke, 315 Md. at 590 , 556 A.2d at 235-36 ; Mack v. State, 300 Md. 583, 600 , 479 A.2d 1344, 1352 (1984). *658 In the case sub judice, the trial court held a motions hearing on April 2, 2001, at which time the motion for a new sentencing based on newly discovered evidence was heard. 2002See Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587, 600 , 709 A.2d 1194, 1200 (1998); Yorke, 315 Md. at 590 , 556 A.2d at 235-36 ; Mack v. State, 300 Md. 583, 600 , 479 A.2d 1344, 1352 (1984). *658 In the case sub judice, the trial court held a motions hearing on April 2, 2001, at which time the motion for a new sentencing based on newly discovered evidence was heard. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B.green1 sentence2025Following a motions hearing, on October 29, 2024, the juvenile court denied both of Appellant’s motions because of Appellant’s “[f]ailure to properly serve the biological parent(s) with the Writ of Summons and Complaint” and his “[f]ailure to include both 5 biological parents as parties to the Special Immigrant Juvenile case[.]” Additionally, the juvenile court concluded that “there is no authority to file this matter in a Juvenile CINA case” and that the request for SIJS “must be filed in a separate Family Law case.” On March 5, 2025, Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”) filed an Emergency Motion | 1 | 1 |
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Mediagreen2 sentences2024Argus Leader Between the time of the motions hearing and the time when the court issued its decision in 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427 (2019). 2024In Argus Leader the Court rejected the National Parks test and its dictate that some information cannot be “confidential,” for purposes of Exemption 4, unless its disclosure is likely to result in “substantial competitive harm.” Id. at 430 ; see id. at 440 (holding that, “[a]t least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of Exemption 4”). | 1 | 1 |
Edmund v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Edmund v. State, 398 Md. 562, 569 (2007) (approving trial court’s decision to address the merits of the petitioner’s Rule 4-252 motion where “there was no sandbagging of the State,” which had an opportunity to respond in advance of the motions hearing); Davis v. State, 100 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Edmund v. State, 398 Md. 562, 569 (2007) (approving trial court’s decision to address the merits of the petitioner’s Rule 4-252 motion where “there was no sandbagging of the State,” which had an opportunity to respond in advance of the motions hearing); Davis v. State, 100 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Sinclair v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 369, 386 (1994) (finding that good cause existed to excuse late filing where appellant was involuntarily without counsel during the relevant filing period); Sinclair, 444 Md. at 35-36 (finding waiver where counsel attempted to raise grounds for motion to suppress on the first day of trial without any showing of good cause). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Keith A. Va Leriegreen1 sentence2022See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984); see also United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694, 706 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Because seizure is defined as some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in his property, not all police interference with an individual’s property constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure, i.e., the police do not seize property every time they handle private property.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jacobsengreen1 sentence2022See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984); see also United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694, 706 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Because seizure is defined as some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in his property, not all police interference with an individual’s property constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure, i.e., the police do not seize property every time they handle private property.”). | 1 | 1 |
| McCracken v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Claibourne v. Willisgreen1 sentence2021Enrolled Judgment > Revisory Power > Opening or Vacating Judgment > Grounds > Mistake It is “well settled that ‘mistake,’ as used in Rule 2-535(b), is limited to a jurisdictional error, such as where the Court lacks the power to enter the judgment.” Claibourne v. Willis, 347 Md. 684, 692 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Greenstreet v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brice v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See McCracken v. State, 429 Md. 507 , 516 n.6 (2012) (declining to address a separate argument that evidence was properly seized under the Fourth Amendment where that argument was abandoned by the State at oral argument). 15 supported by probable cause, rather we must determine whether the “issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that the [court order] was supported by probable cause.” [Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76, 89 (2007)] (emphasis added) (citing Greenstreet v. State, 392 Md. 652 , 898 A.2d 961 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Guidrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perry v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gloria Sandone v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| 120 W. FAYETTE STREET, LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Danielczykgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Okwa v. Harpergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. Obergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vinogradova v. Suntrust Bank, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| MacK v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mazzonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tu v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wengert v. State
green
2 sentences2014“Our review of the propriety of the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence is limited to the record developed at the motions hearing.” Wengert, 364 Md. at 84 . 2006Additionally, “[o]ur review of the propriety of the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence is limited to the record developed at the motions hearing.” Wengert, supra, 364 Md. at 84 , 771 A.2d 389 . | 3 | 2005–2014 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2020In the second case, Taylor, also during a hearing on a pretrial motion to dismiss, the defendant introduced into evidence, without objection, a memorandum that summarized the State’s evidence, and the parties “proceeded at the motions hearing based on an agreement that [the] memorandum was an accurate and complete summary of the facts underlying the charges in the information.” Id. at 626 . 2015Taylor and the State proceeded at the motions hearing based on an agreement that State’s Exhibit 1 “was an accurate and complete summary of the facts underlying the charges in the information.” Id. | 2 | 2015–2020 |
Trusty v. State
green
2 sentences2019Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658 , 669– 72 (1987). 2015Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 669-72 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987). | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Martinez v. State
green
2 sentences2013After observing that its decision in Calloway “inform[ed] the resolution of’ the case before it, id. at 429, 7 A.3d 56 , the Court noted that the State’s nolle prossing of charges against Mejicanos, just six days before he testified at the motions hearing in Martinez’s case, and its incarceration of him pending his testimony were evidence of “bias, motivated by self-interest.” Id. at 431 , 7 A.3d 56 . 2013After observing that its decision in Calloway “inform[ed] the resolution of’ the case before it, id. at 429, 7 A.3d 56 , the Court noted that the State’s nolle prossing of charges against Mejicanos, just six days before he testified at the motions hearing in Martinez’s case, and its incarceration of him pending his testimony were evidence of “bias, motivated by self-interest.” Id. at 431 , 7 A.3d 56 . | 2 | 2013–2018 |
Denicolis v. State
green
2 sentences2015Neither the trial court nor the prosecutor should be surprised at the hearing.”). 15 *30 Although Rule 4-252 is unambiguous in setting a time limit and requiring some detail as to the basis for a suppression motion, it also grants trial courts discretion to hear noncompliant motions “for good cause shown.” In Denicolis , this Court observed that some trial courts allow defense counsel to file timely an omnibus motion “seeking a panoply of relief based on bald, eonclusory allegations devoid of any articulated factual or legal underpinning,” and later supplement that motion to flesh out the spec 2015Neither the trial court nor the prosecutor should be surprised at the hearing.”). 15 *30 Although Rule 4-252 is unambiguous in setting a time limit and requiring some detail as to the basis for a suppression motion, it also grants trial courts discretion to hear noncompliant motions “for good cause shown.” In Denicolis , this Court observed that some trial courts allow defense counsel to file timely an omnibus motion “seeking a panoply of relief based on bald, eonclusory allegations devoid of any articulated factual or legal underpinning,” and later supplement that motion to flesh out the spec | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Northam
green
2 sentences2012Less than two months after the motions hearing, the defendant filed a motion for a change in venue in the form of a letter captioned “For a Change of Venue,” stating at the end of the letter that his public defender had not contacted him even though trial was three weeks away and requesting “a Court appointed attorney and Change of Venue.” Id. at 202-03 , 26 A.3d 344 . 2012Less than two months after the motions hearing, the defendant filed a motion for a change in venue in the form of a letter captioned “For a Change of Venue,” stating at the end of the letter that his public defender had not contacted him even though trial was three weeks away and requesting “a Court appointed attorney and Change of Venue.” Id. at 202-03 , 26 A.3d 344 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Yorke v. State
green
2 sentences2003At the motions hearing Yorke presented the newly discovered evidence to establish that the DNA fingerprint from the vaginal washing did not match his DNA fingerprint and therefore he could not have raped the victim. 315 Md. at 588, 556 A.2d at 235 . 2002See Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587, 600 , 709 A.2d 1194, 1200 (1998); Yorke, 315 Md. at 590 , 556 A.2d at 235-36 ; Mack v. State, 300 Md. 583, 600 , 479 A.2d 1344, 1352 (1984). *658 In the case sub judice, the trial court held a motions hearing on April 2, 2001, at which time the motion for a new sentencing based on newly discovered evidence was heard. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Campbell v. State
green
1 sentence2026Having “felt the pulse of the trial” and “rely[ing] on his own impressions” of that trial as he was entitled to do, Campbell, 373 Md. at 672 , the judge determined “that the case [against Ms. Gambino] hinged on the assertion that” she rendered her child a CINA by exposing her “to Child Welfare Services Forensic interviews.” At the motions hearing prior to sentencing, the judge characterized Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony as it related to this core issue as “parrot[ing] what can be verified by the video and the audio” recording of her interview with R. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 692–93. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence2026He recognized that Ms. Rodriguez gave details about unrecorded conversations with Ms. Gambino, but ultimately found it “immaterial” to the jury’s decision “whether or not [Ms. Gambino] was told not to discuss [the case] with [R]” because “she clearly had the background to understand how the operation worked because of her line of work.” We cannot say that this conclusion was in any way “arbitrary or capricious, or without the letter or beyond the reason of the law.” Nelson, 315 Md. at 70 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025The motion did not mention the victim’s CAC interview, the DNA report, or any other missing discovery. 1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishing a criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to the pretrial disclosure of exculpatory information). 3 At a motions hearing on February 16, 2024, the State informed the defense that the investigation did not occur and, thus, that there was no evidence to produce. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lattisaw
green
1 sentence2023This was just the earliest available date I could get for both of them.” Id. at 23 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Throckmorton
green
2 sentences2021First, the fraudulent and forged Power of Attorney did not prevent Roberto “from exhibiting fully his case,” or “keep[] him away from court.” Throckmorton, 98 U.S. at 65 . 2021Accordingly, like the fraudulent grant in Throckmorton, 98 U.S. at 65 , the contractual misrepresentations in Mueller, 30 Md. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Mueller v. Payn
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, like the fraudulent grant in Throckmorton, 98 U.S. at 65 , the contractual misrepresentations in Mueller, 30 Md. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Leroy Neal Barksdale,ska Leroy Neil Barksdale v. CW green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Wisconsin v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Sizer v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Piemonte v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Nathan v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Belote v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Vandegrift v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Stevenson v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Fato v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Rison green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| I. T. O. Corp. v. Sellman green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gambrill v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United States v. Murphy green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| McDonald v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Towson University v. Conte green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Maddox v. Cohn green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Donigan v. Donigan green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals red | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Joseph v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| White v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Bedford v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| District of Columbia v. Heller green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.