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.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sibert v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Sibert pointed out, 301 Md. at 147-48 , 482 A.2d 483 , that “the ‘claim of right’ defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix,” supra. According to this legislative commentary, the claim of right defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix, 195 Md. 235 , 72 A.2d 720 (1950). 2003Sibert pointed out, 301 Md. at 147-48 , 482 A.2d 483 , that “the ‘claim of right’ defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix,” supra. According to this legislative commentary, the claim of right defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix, 195 Md. 235 , 72 A.2d 720 (1950). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sleightergreen2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schaefergreen2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saunders v. Mullinix
green
2 sentences2011According to this legislative commentary, the claim of right defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix, 195 Md. 235 , 72 A.2d 720 (1950). 2011According to this legislative commentary, the claim of right defense in Maryland originated in Saunders v. Mullinix, 195 Md. 235 , 72 A.2d 720 (1950). | 3 | 1984–2011 |
Alstad v. Boyer
green
1 sentence2024Easements > Creation, Existence, and Termination > Prescription > Adverse Character of Use > Use by permission or agreement “Mere failure to protest is not permission but acquiescence[,]” which is “the inactive status of quiescence or unqualified submission to the hostile claim of another[.]” Dalton, 201 Md. at 50 (quoting Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307 , 37 N.W.2d 376 (1949)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Dalton v. Real Estate & Improvement Co.
green
1 sentence2024Easements > Creation, Existence, and Termination > Prescription > Adverse Character of Use > Use by permission or agreement “Mere failure to protest is not permission but acquiescence[,]” which is “the inactive status of quiescence or unqualified submission to the hostile claim of another[.]” Dalton, 201 Md. at 50 (quoting Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307 , 37 N.W.2d 376 (1949)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
West v. State
green
2 sentences2007West, 312 Md. at 202 , 539 A.2d at 233 . 2007West, 312 Md. at 202 , 539 A.2d at 233 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jupiter v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 646 , 616 A.2d 412 . 2007Id. at 646 , 616 A.2d 412 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Winston
green
2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Brighter
green
2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Edwards v. State
green
2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App.1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189 , 305 A.2d 800, 801-02 (1973); Sleighter, 433 A.2d at 471 (opinion of Flaherty, J.), although there is no consensus on this point, see Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 ; Winston, 295 S.E.2d at 51 ; Edwards, 181 N.W.2d at 387 . 1992A few courts have suggested that the claim of right defense should be abrogated altogether as a defense to robbery, see State v. Schaefer, 163 Ariz. 626 , 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ct.App. 1990); Thomas, 584 So.2d at 1026 ; State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.