7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wallgreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1131 (7th Cir.1985) (refusing to grant the prosecution a fair response "beyond those cases in which the defendant offers his explanation as part of a deliberate defense strategy”); State v. Wall, 78 Or.App. 81 , 715 P.2d 96, 99 (1986) ("[I]n this case, the evidence that allegedly opened the door was elicited by the prosecutor himself on cross-examination. 2011See, e.g., United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1131 (7th Cir.1985) (refusing to grant the prosecution a fair response "beyond those cases in which the defendant offers his explanation as part of a deliberate defense strategy”); State v. Wall, 78 Or.App. 81 , 715 P.2d 96, 99 (1986) ("[I]n this case, the evidence that allegedly opened the door was elicited by the prosecutor himself on cross-examination. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Shuegreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1131 (7th Cir.1985) (refusing to grant the prosecution a fair response "beyond those cases in which the defendant offers his explanation as part of a deliberate defense strategy”); State v. Wall, 78 Or.App. 81 , 715 P.2d 96, 99 (1986) ("[I]n this case, the evidence that allegedly opened the door was elicited by the prosecutor himself on cross-examination. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2004The second reason is that the Williams Court, while not adopting “a new rule or any mandated procedure[,]” articulated a standard for how to assess a deliberate violation of the presentment rule, applicable to both a suppression court and a jury. 375 Md. at 433, 825 A.2d 1078 . 9 Ordinarily, on appellate review, the Court assumes that the hearing or trial court knew the law and properly applied it. 2004Majority’s Rationale For Reversing I cannot join in the majority’s conclusion that reversal is required only because “the Williams Court ... articulated a standard for how to assess a deliberate violation of the presentment rule[.]” In my view, that holding does not follow the Court of Appeals’ decision in Williams v. State, 375 Md. 404 , 825 A.2d 1078 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chaneygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Chaney, 375 Md. 168, 179 , 825 A.2d 452 (2003) (“trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it properly”). 2004See State v. Chaney, 375 Md. 168, 179 , 825 A.2d 452 (2003) (“trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it properly”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Scottgreen1 sentence1982A defendant’s motion for a mistrial constitutes 'a deliberate election on his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact.’ United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 93 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joseph v. Bozzuto Management Co.
green
2 sentences2008This Court will not ordinarily dismiss an appeal "in the absence of prejudice to appellee or a deliberate violation of the rule." Id. (emphasis omitted). 2008This Court will not ordinarily dismiss an appeal “in the absence of prejudice to appellee or a deliberate violation of the rule.” Id. (emphasis omitted). | 3 | 2008–2019 |
Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck
green
2 sentences1958In the Philadelphia Transit Company case, supra, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania said at p. 413: “ ‘Willful misconduct’ is not defined in the statute 2 [nor is it in the Maryland statute], but this Court has held it to comprehend an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interests, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee, or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.” See Boynton Cab Co. 1958In the Philadelphia Transit Company case, supra, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania said at p. 413: “ ‘Willful misconduct’ is not defined in the statute 2 [nor is it in the Maryland statute], but this Court has held it to comprehend an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interests, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee, or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.” See Boynton Cab Co. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.