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.
9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Doregreen2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW “Whether to abate the payment of interest by a [foreclosure sale] purchaser . . . is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge.” Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md. 2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore | 2 | 2 |
Dallas v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Chamberlaingreen2 sentences2010See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Chamberlain, 326 Md. 306, 318 , 604 A.2d 919, 924-25 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, Chapter 407 of the Acts of 1993. 2010See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Chamberlain, 326 Md. 306, 318 , 604 A.2d 919, 924-25 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, Chapter 407 of the Acts of 1993. | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheridangreen2 sentences2003Concerning the discretion of a hearing judge, we have stated that “it is elementary that the [hearing] judge ‘may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon.’ ” Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999)(alteration added)(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664, 675 , 496 A.2d 672, 677 (1985)). 2003Concerning the discretion of a hearing judge, we have stated that “it is elementary that the [hearing] judge ‘may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon.’ ” Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999)(alteration added)(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664, 675 , 496 A.2d 672, 677 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kempgreen2 sentences2003Concerning the discretion of a hearing judge, we have stated that “it is elementary that the [hearing] judge ‘may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon.’ ” Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999)(alteration added)(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664, 675 , 496 A.2d 672, 677 (1985)). 2003Concerning the discretion of a hearing judge, we have stated that “it is elementary that the [hearing] judge ‘may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon.’ ” Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999)(alteration added)(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664, 675 , 496 A.2d 672, 677 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de 1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de | 1 | 1 |
Frank Johns v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institutiongreen1 sentence1981Although the failure to call alibi witnesses presents a ground on which relief may be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel, Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333, 335 , 214 A.2d 144 (1966); accord, Johns v. Perini, 462 F.2d 1308, 1315 (6th Cir. 1972); Gomez v. Beto, 462 F.2d 596, 597 (5th Cir. 1972), the decision whether to call a witness is ordinarily a matter of trial tactics within the discretion of defense counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Joe Cisneros Gomez v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence1981Although the failure to call alibi witnesses presents a ground on which relief may be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel, Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333, 335 , 214 A.2d 144 (1966); accord, Johns v. Perini, 462 F.2d 1308, 1315 (6th Cir. 1972); Gomez v. Beto, 462 F.2d 596, 597 (5th Cir. 1972), the decision whether to call a witness is ordinarily a matter of trial tactics within the discretion of defense counsel. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edward L. Dinglegreen1 sentence1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baltrotsky v. Kugler
green
2 sentences2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore 2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore | 2 | 2008–2016 |
Johns v. Warden
green
2 sentences1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de 1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de | 2 | 1968–1981 |
Fisher v. Ward
green
2 sentences2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore 2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Zorzit v. 915 W. 36th Street, LLC
green
2 sentences2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore 2016Although we review de novo the legal standard that the court applied, see, e.g., Fisher v. Ward, 226 Md.App. 149, 156 , 126 A.3d 825 (2015), we review the court’s decision to deny abatement of interest in this instance under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard.” Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 , 477 n. 7, 910 A.2d 1089 (2006); see also Thomas v. Dore, 183 Md.App. 388, 405 , 961 A.2d 655 (2008) (generally, the decision to abate interest accrued in a foreclosure sale is “a decision entrusted to the discretion of the hearing judge”); Zorzit, 197 Md.App. at 96-97 , 12 A.3d 698 . *309 Fore | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Evans v. Warden
green
2 sentences1981Although the failure to call alibi witnesses presents a ground on which relief may be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel, Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333, 335 , 214 A.2d 144 (1966); accord, Johns v. Perini, 462 F.2d 1308, 1315 (6th Cir. 1972); Gomez v. Beto, 462 F.2d 596, 597 (5th Cir. 1972), the decision whether to call a witness is ordinarily a matter of trial tactics within the discretion of defense counsel. 1981Although the failure to call alibi witnesses presents a ground on which relief may be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel, Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333, 335 , 214 A.2d 144 (1966); accord, Johns v. Perini, 462 F.2d 1308, 1315 (6th Cir. 1972); Gomez v. Beto, 462 F.2d 596, 597 (5th Cir. 1972), the decision whether to call a witness is ordinarily a matter of trial tactics within the discretion of defense counsel. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Shelton v. State
green
1 sentence1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lane v. Gover
neutral
1 sentence1981Johns v. Warden, 240 Md. 209 , 212- 213 A.2d 469 (1965); Shelton v. State, 3 Md. 394, 401 , 239 A.2d 610 (1968); accord United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir. 1976); see also People v. Rodriguez, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1023 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Ct. App. 1977) where the court stated: The law is well settled that a constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel is not established by a showing merely that defense counsel has failed to interview and call all prospective wit *541 nesses .... since some witnesses may, with apparent certainty, be of little or no assistance to the de | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Matlock
green
2 sentences1975United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , 94 S. Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), established that the formal rules of evidence are suspended and that the decision as to the receipt of evidence is left to the broad discretion of the hearing judge. 1975United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , 94 S. Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), established that the formal rules of evidence are suspended and that the decision as to the receipt of evidence is left to the broad discretion of the hearing judge. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.