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 1993–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Even an unintentional violation of Rule 4-263 may require a mistrial if there is irreparable prejudice to the defendant. *546 See Evans, 304 Md. at 501 , 499 A.2d 1261 . 1993Even an unintentional violation of Rule 4-263 may require a mistrial if there is irreparable prejudice to the defendant. *546 See Evans, 304 Md. at 501 , 499 A.2d 1261 . | 1 | 3 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stolarzgreen2 sentences2013This Court has explained on numerous occasions that with regard to Rule 1.15 “an unintentional violation of this rule ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” 379 Md. at 399 (citations omitted). 2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. | 1 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheridangreen2 sentences2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. 2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. | 1 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. 2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Glenn
green
2 sentences2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. 2005Although Mr. Zuckerman alleges that he did not purposefully act to violate this Rule, this argument is of no consequence because this Court has explained on several occasions that “an unintentional violation of [Rule 1.15] ... is still a violation of the attorney’s affirmative duties imposed by the rule.” See Stolarz, 379 Md. at 399 , 842 A.2d at 49 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 20 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1154 (1999) (quoting Glenn, 341 Md. at 472 , 671 A.2d at 475 ); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 96-97 , 706 A.2d 1080, 1085 (1998). 2. | 4 | 1998–2018 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. (citing Evans, 304 Md. at 501 , 499 A.2d 1261 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.