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 1970–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Matthews, through appointed counsel, counters that the General Assembly’s enactment of the new statute, Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which permits a defendant to seek a Writ of Actual Innocence, “dramatically changes the posture of this case.” He relies on Thompson v. *295 State, 411 Md. 664, 680-81 , 985 A.2d 32, 41-42 (2009), which applied Section 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“DNA evidence—Postconviction review”) to a then-pending case, to urge us to do likewise in the present case under Section 8-301. 2010Matthews, through appointed counsel, counters that the General Assembly’s enactment of the new statute, Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which permits a defendant to seek a Writ of Actual Innocence, “dramatically changes the posture of this case.” He relies on Thompson v. *295 State, 411 Md. 664, 680-81 , 985 A.2d 32, 41-42 (2009), which applied Section 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“DNA evidence—Postconviction review”) to a then-pending case, to urge us to do likewise in the present case under Section 8-301. | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. Stategreen1 sentence1970See Arnold v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rochkind v. Stevenson
green
2 sentences2022We decided Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), abrogating the Frye-Reed standard, while Matthews’s appeal was pending in the Court of Special Appeals. 7 and degree of uncertainty in the measurement, as well as presentation of contrary expert testimony.” On September 21, 2018, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Matthews’s motion to preclude the expert testimony. 2022We decided Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), abrogating the Frye-Reed standard, while Matthews’s appeal was pending in the Court of Special Appeals. 7 and degree of uncertainty in the measurement, as well as presentation of contrary expert testimony.” On September 21, 2018, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Matthews’s motion to preclude the expert testimony. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Matthews
green
2 sentences2015“In conclusion, we hold that Matthews’s motion [for a new trial] may be treated on remand as a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence under Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article.” 415 Md. at 312 , 999 A.2d 1050 . 2015“In conclusion, we hold that Matthews’s motion [for a new trial] may be treated on remand as a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence under Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article.” 415 Md. at 312 , 999 A.2d 1050 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Keyes v. State
green
2 sentences2015In Keyes v. State, 215 Md.App. 660 , 84 A.3d 141 (2014), the petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence was properly denied where the newly discovered evidence was only of an impeaching character. 2015In Keyes v. State, 215 Md.App. 660 , 84 A.3d 141 (2014), the petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence was properly denied where the newly discovered evidence was only of an impeaching character. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Matthews v. State
green
2 sentences2017That cap is a cap as to actual and immediate incarceration at the time of initial disposition.” Id. at 507 , 36 A.3d at 501 . 2017That cap is a cap as to actual and immediate incarceration at the time of initial disposition.” Id. at 507 , 36 A.3d at 501 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Campbell v. State
green
2 sentences2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. 2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ware v. State
green
2 sentences2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. 2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Love v. State
green
2 sentences2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. 2010The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 , 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420 , 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62 , 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews’s untimely motion. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.