9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kpetigo v. Kpetigogreen2 sentences2021See id. at 575-76 , 192 A.3d at 938 . 2021See id. at 575-76 , 192 A.3d at 938 . | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Carter, 243 Md. 2021See Carter, 243 Md. | 1 | 1 |
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Briscoegreen2 sentences2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Calhoungreen2 sentences2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Culvergreen2 sentences2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 2006See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 572 , 894 A.2d 518, 542 (2006) ("It is not the finding of effective dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation, however, that is essential to our determination whether disbarment is the appropriate selection, but rather the attorney's intent. `The gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct'."), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 280-81 , 808 A.2d 1251, 1260 (2002), quoting in turn Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568 , 745 | 1 | 1 |
Davidson v. Millergreen2 sentences1979As to the first two factors, there can only be agreement that a number of counties in Maryland have enjoyed a measure of growth so that Baltimore City is no longer the only highly populated political subdivision in this State, see Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 80 , 344 A. 2d 422, 437 (1975); and that the number of individual inhabitants per judge in Baltimore City is lower than in some other heavily populated jurisdictions, Ad. 1979As to the first two factors, there can only be agreement that a number of counties in Maryland have enjoyed a measure of growth so that Baltimore City is no longer the only highly populated political subdivision in this State, see Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 80 , 344 A. 2d 422, 437 (1975); and that the number of individual inhabitants per judge in Baltimore City is lower than in some other heavily populated jurisdictions, Ad. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. State
green
1 sentence2025As such, the comment was a “blurt.” See Washington, 191 Md. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Himes Associates, Ltd. v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2012In Himes, 178 Md.App. at 528-29 , 943 A.2d 30 , with Judge Deborah S. Eyler speaking for the Court, we discussed specific personal jurisdiction in the context of cases involving contractual disputes, stating: In the past, when a contractual dispute was involved, in deciding the issue of specific [personal] jurisdiction, we have combined our consideration of the first two factors (whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the state’s benefits in conducting business and whether jurisdiction “arose” out of the cause of action), and have reasoned that the exercise of specific [persona 2012In Himes, 178 Md.App. at 528-29 , 943 A.2d 30 , with Judge Deborah S. Eyler speaking for the Court, we discussed specific personal jurisdiction in the context of cases involving contractual disputes, stating: In the past, when a contractual dispute was involved, in deciding the issue of specific [personal] jurisdiction, we have combined our consideration of the first two factors (whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the state’s benefits in conducting business and whether jurisdiction “arose” out of the cause of action), and have reasoned that the exercise of specific [persona | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sweitzer
green
2 sentences2009Sweitzer, 395 Md. at 599-600 , 911 A.2d at 448 . 2009Sweitzer, 395 Md. at 599-600 , 911 A.2d at 448 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sleph v. Radtke
green
2 sentences2008In the past, when a contractual dispute was involved, in deciding the issue of specific jurisdiction, we have combined our consideration of the first two factors (whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the state’s benefits in conducting business and whether jurisdiction “arose” out of the cause of action), and have reasoned that the exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper when “the suit is based on a contract that has a substantial connection with the forum State.” Sleph v. Radtke, 76 Md.App. 418, 428 , 545 A.2d 111 , cert. denied, 314 Md. 193 , 550 A.2d 381 (1988). 2008In the past, when a contractual dispute was involved, in deciding the issue of specific jurisdiction, we have combined our consideration of the first two factors (whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the state’s benefits in conducting business and whether jurisdiction “arose” out of the cause of action), and have reasoned that the exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper when “the suit is based on a contract that has a substantial connection with the forum State.” Sleph v. Radtke, 76 Md.App. 418, 428 , 545 A.2d 111 , cert. denied, 314 Md. 193 , 550 A.2d 381 (1988). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Joseph M. Alioto
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 212 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.