conducted hearing in Maryland

8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Liddy v. Lamonegreen md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018As to unreasonable delay, we observed that the plaintiff filed the complaint on October 20, 2006, only eighteen days before the 2006 general election; that, on October 25, 2006, the trial court conducted a hearing in the case; and that, on November 2, 2006, this Court heard oral argument, "leaving only 5 days remaining before the general election." Id. at 252 , 919 A.2d at 1288 -89 . 2018As to unreasonable delay, we observed that the plaintiff filed the complaint on October 20, 2006, only eighteen days before the 2006 general election; that, on October 25, 2006, the trial court conducted a hearing in the case; and that, on November 2, 2006, this Court heard oral argument, "leaving only 5 days remaining before the general election." Id. at 252 , 919 A.2d at 1288 -89 .	1	1
State v. Thompsongreen ariz · 1974 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Courtney v. Harford County green mdctspecapp · 1994 1 sentence 2026Id. at 655–56.	1	2026–2026
Lettley v. State green md · 2000 2 sentences 2012Id. at 43 , 746 A.2d at 401 . 2012Id. at 43 , 746 A.2d at 401 .	1	2012–2012
In Re Billy W. green md · 2005 1 sentence 2006Subsequently, the court conducted a hearing, as a result of a petition requesting judicial approval of the placement of the children in shelter care, and “ordered DSS custody of the children, and shelter care for them, pending an adjudicatory hearing.” Id.	1	2006–2006
Keane v. State green md · 1933 2 sentences 1997In Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 , 166 A. 410 (1933), the Court ruled that the writ of coram nobis will not lie to contradict or place in issue any fact that has been already adjudicated even if wrongly decided. 1997In Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 , 166 A. 410 (1933), the Court ruled that the writ of coram nobis will not lie to contradict or place in issue any fact that has been already adjudicated even if wrongly decided.	1	1997–1997
Nyburg v. Solmson green md · 1954 2 sentences 1994After the court conducted a hearing on the merits of the appeal, it granted Solmson’s petition, finding that Nyburg “was not entitled, under the facts of the case, to intervene as a defendant, having taken a late appeal from the decision of the Board of which he now complains.” Id. at 156 , 106 A.2d 483 . 1994After the court conducted a hearing on the merits of the appeal, it granted Solmson’s petition, finding that Nyburg “was not entitled, under the facts of the case, to intervene as a defendant, having taken a late appeal from the decision of the Board of which he now complains.” Id. at 156 , 106 A.2d 483 .	1	1994–1994
Johnson v. State green md · 1985 2 sentences 1992Under the principles enunciated in Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 513-14 , 495 A.2d 1 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 868 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986), Patrick (and the State) could not intentionally use any of the polygraph materials. 1992Under the principles enunciated in Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 513-14 , 495 A.2d 1 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 868 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986), Patrick (and the State) could not intentionally use any of the polygraph materials.	1	1992–1992
McKenna v. Nevada green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 1992Under the principles enunciated in Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 513-14 , 495 A.2d 1 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 868 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986), Patrick (and the State) could not intentionally use any of the polygraph materials. 1992Under the principles enunciated in Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 513-14 , 495 A.2d 1 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 868 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986), Patrick (and the State) could not intentionally use any of the polygraph materials.	1	1992–1992
Snyder v. Massachusetts green scotus · 1934 2 sentences 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made 1974Mr. Justice Cardozo, who delivered the majority opinion for the Court, after pointing out the distinction “between requirements in respect of presence that have their source in the common law, and requirements that have their source, either expressly or by implication, in the federal constitution,” stated: “So far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.” 291 U. S. at 107-08 . 11 A trenchant observation made by Mr. Justice Cardozo is h	1	1974–1974
Gelhaar v. State green wis · 1973 2 sentences 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1974–1974
United States v. Norman Gradsky and Robert B. Roberts green ca5 · 1971 1 sentence 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1974–1974
State v. Ritchey green ariz · 1971 2 sentences 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1974–1974
State v. White green me · 1972 1 sentence 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1974–1974
State v. Clarke green wis · 1970 2 sentences 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made 1974See also State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 297 , 518 P. 2d 120 (1974) (where the admissibility of a tape recording made of the interrogation of the defendant was argued in chambers); Gelhaar v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 547 , 207 N.W.2d 88 (1973) (where none of the matters discussed at an in chambers conference and at a bench conference “went to the guilt or innocence of the defendant”); State v. White, Me., 285 A. 2d 832 (1972) (where in a chambers conference the court conducted a hearing concerning the admissibility of portions of a deposition taken from a witness after objection to its use had been made	1	1974–1974

Where else courts name it

TX 159 (1966–2025) IL 140 (1956–2026) CA 131 (1962–2026) OH 111 (1994–2026) PA 111 (1976–2026) NY 111 (1911–2026) GA 93 (1972–2025) FL 80 (1966–2023) AL 56 (1978–2023) NC 36 (1969–2026) IN 27 (1978–2019) TN 27 (1984–2026) MI 25 (1983–2026) NJ 22 (1990–2026) CT 19 (1989–2024) LA 19 (1970–2020) MS 18 (1977–2023) WY 18 (2018–2026) MO 14 (1961–2023) AZ 13 (1969–2021) CO 13 (1942–2022) KY 13 (1971–2026) KS 12 (1948–2026) VA 11 (1996–2023) WA 9 (1993–2022) MD 8 (1974–2026) OK 8 (1937–2015) WV 7 (1980–2024) OR 6 (1911–2022) DC 6 (1984–2016) ME 5 (2009–2017) SC 5 (1986–2021) AR 5 (1973–2024) VT 4 (2001–2026) UT 4 (2001–2021) NE 3 (1992–2013) WI 3 (1993–2010) NM 3 (1952–1970) SD 3 (1990–2013) DE 2 (2015–2022) ID 2 (1979–2022) HI 2 (2003–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check