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 1938–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Stores Co. v. Hermangreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., American Stores Co. v. Herman, 166 Md. 312, 316 , 171 A. 54 (1934). 2001See, e.g., American Stores Co. v. Herman, 166 Md. 312, 316 , 171 A. 54 (1934). | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilgreen2 sentences1996See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), and compare our recent case Erb v. Maryland Dept. of the Env’t, 110 Md.App. 246, 676 A.2d 1017 (1996). 16 . 1996See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), and compare our recent case Erb v. Maryland Dept. of the Env’t, 110 Md.App. 246, 676 A.2d 1017 (1996). 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Erb v. Maryland Department of Environmentgreen2 sentences1996See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), and compare our recent case Erb v. Maryland Dept. of the Env’t, 110 Md.App. 246, 676 A.2d 1017 (1996). 16 . 1996See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), and compare our recent case Erb v. Maryland Dept. of the Env’t, 110 Md.App. 246, 676 A.2d 1017 (1996). 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). 1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Moten v. Stategreen2 sentences1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). 1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Maus v. Stategreen2 sentences1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). 1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Argabright v. Stategreen2 sentences1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). 1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Parren v. Stategreen2 sentences1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). 1995This Court has repeatedly stated that “the purpose of Rule 4-215 is to protect that most important fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel, which is basic to our adversary system of criminal justice,----” Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 411 , 663 A.2d 593, 596 (1995); Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266, 272 , 582 A.2d 803, 806 (1990); Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85, 111 , 532 A.2d 1066, 1079 (1987); Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 281-82 , 523 A.2d 597, 607 (1987); Argabright v. State, 75 Md.App. 442, 459 , 541 A.2d 1017, 1025 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yopps v. State
green
2 sentences1989“Through his counsel, no matter how convincing the evidence may appear to be, the accused has the right to subject all the facts and evidence produced at the trial to a logical analysis.” 228 Md. at 208 , 178 A.2d 879 . 1989“Through his counsel, no matter how convincing the evidence may appear to be, the accused has the right to subject all the facts and evidence produced at the trial to a logical analysis.” 228 Md. at 208 , 178 A.2d 879 . | 3 | 1977–1989 |
State v. Cross
green
1 sentence1975Va.) 24 S. E. 996 , the court held that the defense of accidental killing is a denial of the criminal intent, and throws upon the state the burden of proving such intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is not required to sustain such defense by a preponderance of testimony. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rome and Modo v. State
green
1 sentence1969Noting that no opportunity was afforded counsel to begin an argument before the judge’s verdict of guilty was pronounced, the court ruled at page 208 that such action was “'manifestly prejudicial to the right of the accused to be represented by counsel throughout the entire trial and amounted to a denial of his rights under Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights of this State”; and that “Through his counsel, no matter how convincing the evidence may appear to be, the accused has the right to subject all the facts and evidence produced at the trial to a logical analysis.” In Rome v. State, 236 | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Spedden v. Norton
green
2 sentences1938Co., supra. See Krug v. Mercantile Tr. & Dep. Co. (1918), 133 Md. 110, 116 , 104 A. 414 ; Spedden v. Norton (1930), 159 Md. 101, 105 , 150 A. 15 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1930), 159 Md. 175, 180-184 , 150 A, 282; Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 844, p. 2446: It would seem incontrovertable that a review of the prior decisions of this tribunal demonstrates that conflict and inconsistency exist. 1938Co., supra. See Krug v. Mercantile Tr. & Dep. Co. (1918), 133 Md. 110, 116 , 104 A. 414 ; Spedden v. Norton (1930), 159 Md. 101, 105 , 150 A. 15 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1930), 159 Md. 175, 180-184 , 150 A, 282; Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 844, p. 2446: It would seem incontrovertable that a review of the prior decisions of this tribunal demonstrates that conflict and inconsistency exist. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Baldwin v. Baldwin
green
1 sentence1938Co., supra. See Krug v. Mercantile Tr. & Dep. Co. (1918), 133 Md. 110, 116 , 104 A. 414 ; Spedden v. Norton (1930), 159 Md. 101, 105 , 150 A. 15 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1930), 159 Md. 175, 180-184 , 150 A, 282; Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 844, p. 2446: It would seem incontrovertable that a review of the prior decisions of this tribunal demonstrates that conflict and inconsistency exist. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Krug v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.
neutral
2 sentences1938Co., supra. See Krug v. Mercantile Tr. & Dep. Co. (1918), 133 Md. 110, 116 , 104 A. 414 ; Spedden v. Norton (1930), 159 Md. 101, 105 , 150 A. 15 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1930), 159 Md. 175, 180-184 , 150 A, 282; Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 844, p. 2446: It would seem incontrovertable that a review of the prior decisions of this tribunal demonstrates that conflict and inconsistency exist. 1938Co., supra. See Krug v. Mercantile Tr. & Dep. Co. (1918), 133 Md. 110, 116 , 104 A. 414 ; Spedden v. Norton (1930), 159 Md. 101, 105 , 150 A. 15 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1930), 159 Md. 175, 180-184 , 150 A, 282; Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 844, p. 2446: It would seem incontrovertable that a review of the prior decisions of this tribunal demonstrates that conflict and inconsistency exist. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.