adjudication rule in Maryland

2020In re Vanessa C., 104 Md.

2015See, e.g., Arlington, supra, 411 Md. at 545 , 983 A.2d 1071 (concluding that when a post-conviction proceeding is reopened pursuant to CP § 8-201, the UPPA’s waiver provisions apply to that proceeding); Hawes v. State, 216 Md.App. 105, 129 , 85 A.3d 291 (2014) (concluding that CP § 8-201 is “tied” to the UPPA, because “it requires the circuit court to initiate a postconviction proceeding or reopen a prior postconviction proceeding when DNA testing of scientific identification evidence is favorable to the petitioner” and, accordingly “the [UPPA] applies [to a postconviction proceeding initiated

2015See, e.g., Arlington, supra, 411 Md. at 545 , 983 A.2d 1071 (concluding that when a post-conviction proceeding is reopened pursuant to CP § 8-201, the UPPA’s waiver provisions apply to that proceeding); Hawes v. State, 216 Md.App. 105, 129 , 85 A.3d 291 (2014) (concluding that CP § 8-201 is “tied” to the UPPA, because “it requires the circuit court to initiate a postconviction proceeding or reopen a prior postconviction proceeding when DNA testing of scientific identification evidence is favorable to the petitioner” and, accordingly “the [UPPA] applies [to a postconviction proceeding initiated

2008Id. at 670-71 , 904 A.2d 432 .

2008Id. at 670-71 , 904 A.2d 432 .

2006Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy." 539 U.S. at 527 , 123 S.Ct. at 2538, 156 L.Ed.2d at 488 , citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 695 . [8] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), provides: "(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

2006Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy." 539 U.S. at 527 , 123 S.Ct. at 2538, 156 L.Ed.2d at 488 , citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 695 . [8] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), provides: "(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

2006Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy." 539 U.S. at 527 , 123 S.Ct. at 2538, 156 L.Ed.2d at 488 , citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 695 . [8] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), provides: "(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

2006Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy." 539 U.S. at 527 , 123 S.Ct. at 2538, 156 L.Ed.2d at 488 , citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 695 . [8] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), provides: "(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

2001There is federal court jurisdiction over defendant Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc., and plaintiffs have chosen to invoke federal court jurisdiction for the adjudication of their claim against Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc.’ ” “Also on 30 December 1985 the Otts filed a complaint against Kaiser in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.” Ott, 309 Md. at 644 , 526 A.2d at 48 .

2001There is federal court jurisdiction over defendant Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc., and plaintiffs have chosen to invoke federal court jurisdiction for the adjudication of their claim against Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc.’ ” “Also on 30 December 1985 the Otts filed a complaint against Kaiser in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.” Ott, 309 Md. at 644 , 526 A.2d at 48 .

1985In Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 668-69 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839 , 99 S.Ct. 126 , 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978), we said: [Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action____ ... [Ujnder the final adjudication rule, res judicata and collateral estoppel do n

1985In Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 668-69 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839 , 99 S.Ct. 126 , 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978), we said: [Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action____ ... [Ujnder the final adjudication rule, res judicata and collateral estoppel do n

1985In Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 668-69 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839 , 99 S.Ct. 126 , 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978), we said: [Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action____ ... [Ujnder the final adjudication rule, res judicata and collateral estoppel do n

1985In Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 668-69 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839 , 99 S.Ct. 126 , 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978), we said: [Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action____ ... [Ujnder the final adjudication rule, res judicata and collateral estoppel do n

1985In Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 668-69 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839 , 99 S.Ct. 126 , 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978), we said: [Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action____ ... [Ujnder the final adjudication rule, res judicata and collateral estoppel do n

1978Surrey Inn, Inc. v. Jennings, 215 Md. 446, 454-55 , 138 A.2d 658 (1958); accord, Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 267 Md. 149, 156-57 , 297 A.2d 721 (1972).

1978Surrey Inn, Inc. v. Jennings, 215 Md. 446, 454-55 , 138 A.2d 658 (1958); accord, Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 267 Md. 149, 156-57 , 297 A.2d 721 (1972).