Your MCP token and copy-and-paste setup for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and the rest are on the install page — filled in with your real credentials while you are signed in.
Delete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2022For instance, in King v. State, 434 Md. 472, 495 , 76 A.3d 1035, 1048 (2013), we declined to conclude that a suppression remedy existed “[b]ecause the exclusionary rule is not a remedy the courts apply lightly, and the [General Assembly] made no indication that suppression is the proper remedy for a violation of the DNA Collection Act[.]” (Cleaned up). 2022For instance, in King v. State, 434 Md. 472, 495 , 76 A.3d 1035, 1048 (2013), we declined to conclude that a suppression remedy existed “[b]ecause the exclusionary rule is not a remedy the courts apply lightly, and the [General Assembly] made no indication that suppression is the proper remedy for a violation of the DNA Collection Act[.]” (Cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lipinski v. Stategreen2 sentences2011But see Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 125 , 904 A.2d 534, 550 (2006) (citing Lipinski v. State, 333 Md. 582 , 636 A.2d 994 (1994), for the proposition that "although limited remand is not an appropriate disposition in a criminal case when the error at issue occurred during the trial itself, it is appropriate if the error occurred during a proceeding collateral to the trial itself”). . 2011But see Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 125 , 904 A.2d 534, 550 (2006) (citing Lipinski v. State, 333 Md. 582 , 636 A.2d 994 (1994), for the proposition that "although limited remand is not an appropriate disposition in a criminal case when the error at issue occurred during the trial itself, it is appropriate if the error occurred during a proceeding collateral to the trial itself”). . | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2011But see Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 125 , 904 A.2d 534, 550 (2006) (citing Lipinski v. State, 333 Md. 582 , 636 A.2d 994 (1994), for the proposition that "although limited remand is not an appropriate disposition in a criminal case when the error at issue occurred during the trial itself, it is appropriate if the error occurred during a proceeding collateral to the trial itself”). . 2011But see Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 125 , 904 A.2d 534, 550 (2006) (citing Lipinski v. State, 333 Md. 582 , 636 A.2d 994 (1994), for the proposition that "although limited remand is not an appropriate disposition in a criminal case when the error at issue occurred during the trial itself, it is appropriate if the error occurred during a proceeding collateral to the trial itself”). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Roberts v. State, 361 Md. 346, 364-66 , 761 A.2d 885 (2000), the Court of Appeals explained the statutory procedures set forth in C.P. § 3-104(a), 12 stating: The language of [8-104](a) mandates actions to be undertaken by a trial court, if an accused’s competency is properly called into question. 2012In Roberts v. State, 361 Md. 346, 364-66 , 761 A.2d 885 (2000), the Court of Appeals explained the statutory procedures set forth in C.P. § 3-104(a), 12 stating: The language of [8-104](a) mandates actions to be undertaken by a trial court, if an accused’s competency is properly called into question. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences1998Allen v. State, 91 Md.App. 705, 744 , 605 A.2d 960 (1992), cert. denied, 327 Md. 625 , 612 A.2d 256 (1992). 1998Allen v. State, 91 Md.App. 705, 744 , 605 A.2d 960 (1992), cert. denied, 327 Md. 625 , 612 A.2d 256 (1992). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Benton v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1986In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court decided that in a criminal case the doctrine of collateral estoppel is part of federal double jeopardy law and applicable to the states by virtue of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), see R. 1986In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court decided that in a criminal case the doctrine of collateral estoppel is part of federal double jeopardy law and applicable to the states by virtue of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), see R. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1986In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court decided that in a criminal case the doctrine of collateral estoppel is part of federal double jeopardy law and applicable to the states by virtue of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), see R. 1986In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court decided that in a criminal case the doctrine of collateral estoppel is part of federal double jeopardy law and applicable to the states by virtue of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), see R. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Smith v. United States
green
1 sentence1974Following the guidance of the Supreme Court of the United State we find it “clearly within [the] discretion [of the hearing judge] to refuse to hear a criminal case in error, unless the convicted party, suing out the writ, is where he can be made to respond to any judgment [the court] may render.” Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.