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 1971–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.green2 sentences2004Co., 342 Md. 363, 378 , 676 A.2d 65, 72 (1996). 2004Co., 342 Md. 363, 378 , 676 A.2d 65, 72 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Clarkgreen1 sentence1995Wilmington Trust Co., at 329-30, 424 A.2d 744. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022The reasoning behind this requirement is that “the motives or wisdom of the legislative body in adopting an original or comprehensive zoning plan enjoy a strong presumption of correctness and validity.” Id. (citing Norbeck Vill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bradley v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 281, 653 A.2d 436 (quoting Bradley, 80 U.S. at 347 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 281, 653 A.2d 436 (quoting Bradley, 80 U.S. at 347 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Troupe
green
1 sentence2004Most notably, it restricted the use of constancy testimony, allowing it for the sole purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony that a complaint had been made. [Troupe,] 677 A.2d [at 929.] The court also narrowed the reasoning behind the doctrine, rationalizing that it now serves only to counteract a lingering, false assumption. “[T]he scope of our current doctrine is broader than necessary to protect against the unwarranted, but nonetheless persistent, view that a sexual assault victim who does not report the crime cannot be trusted to testify truthfully about the incident.” Id., at [928 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ullman v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2000That result was dictated by a Florida statute, but, according to the court, “the reasoning behind this rule is that the devisee of a revocable trust does not have any control over ownership of the trust property until the settlor’s death.” Id. at 169 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lampitt v. State
green
2 sentences1983The reasoning behind an instruction such as that given here was well expressed in Lampitt v. State, 34 Wyo. 247 , 242 P. 812 (1926), where the court said: "Circumstantial evidence is not like a chain which falls when its weakest link is broken, but is like a cable. 1983The reasoning behind an instruction such as that given here was well expressed in Lampitt v. State, 34 Wyo. 247 , 242 P. 812 (1926), where the court said: "Circumstantial evidence is not like a chain which falls when its weakest link is broken, but is like a cable. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rocks v. Brosius
green
1 sentence1975Rocks *637 v. Brosius, 241 Md. 612, 630 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Luery v. State
green
1 sentence1971The rule as it is applied today is substantially the same as when it was formulated in 1911 by the decision in Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284 , in which the historical background as well as the reasoning behind the rule were set forth. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Watson v. State
green
1 sentence1971In Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 217 , the *186 necessity of corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony was stated to be firmly established in this State. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.