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 1972–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jaffee v. Redmondgreen2 sentences2014Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. at 1932 , 135 L.Ed.2d at 349-50 (“Making the promise of confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relative importance of the patient’s interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege.”). 2014Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. at 1932 , 135 L.Ed.2d at 349-50 (“Making the promise of confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relative importance of the patient’s interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege.”). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2011The provision has persisted in our Waiver Rule through revisions and amendments and has been consistently mandated by the language employed to set it out.” *37 Another case where the defendant represented himself at trial, and where the trial judge failed, inter alia, to inform the defendant of the allowable penalties, was Johnson v. State, supra, 355 Md. 420 , 735 A.2d 1003 . 2011The provision has persisted in our Waiver Rule through revisions and amendments and has been consistently mandated by the language employed to set it out.” *37 Another case where the defendant represented himself at trial, and where the trial judge failed, inter alia, to inform the defendant of the allowable penalties, was Johnson v. State, supra, 355 Md. 420 , 735 A.2d 1003 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2001The court pointed out that, notwithstanding the state law on the effectiveness of waiver, the “right to lesser included offense instructions in capital cases is, however, a matter of federal constitutional law.” Id. at 302 (citing Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)) (emphasis added). 2001The court pointed out that, notwithstanding the state law on the effectiveness of waiver, the “right to lesser included offense instructions in capital cases is, however, a matter of federal constitutional law.” Id. at 302 (citing Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Parren v. State
green
2 sentences1999After citing federal cases interpreting the right to effective assistance of counsel, the Court stated, “This Court obviously shares the regard for the vital part which knowledge of the allowable penalties by the defendant plays in the determination of the effectiveness of a waiver of counsel.” Id. at 282 , 523 A.2d 597 . 1999After citing federal cases interpreting the right to effective assistance of counsel, the Court stated, “This Court obviously shares the regard for the vital part which knowledge of the allowable penalties by the defendant plays in the determination of the effectiveness of a waiver of counsel.” Id. at 282 , 523 A.2d 597 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Franzen v. Dubinok
green
2 sentences1999In Franzen v. Dubinok, 290 Md. 65, 68-69 , 427 A.2d 1002 (1981), the Court of Appeals, speaking to the legal effect of a voluntary act inconsistent with a claim of error, explained: The law of this State is clear that the “right to an appeal may be lost by acquiescence in, or recognition of, the validity of the decision below from which the appeal is taken or by otherwise taking a position which is inconsistent with the right of appeal.” In conformity to this principle, we have heretofore held that the filing of a remittitur by the beneficiary, combined with the acceptance of the tendered paym 1999In Franzen v. Dubinok, 290 Md. 65, 68-69 , 427 A.2d 1002 (1981), the Court of Appeals, speaking to the legal effect of a voluntary act inconsistent with a claim of error, explained: The law of this State is clear that the “right to an appeal may be lost by acquiescence in, or recognition of, the validity of the decision below from which the appeal is taken or by otherwise taking a position which is inconsistent with the right of appeal.” In conformity to this principle, we have heretofore held that the filing of a remittitur by the beneficiary, combined with the acceptance of the tendered paym | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences1972Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 ; Moore v. State, 7 Md. 1972Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 ; Moore v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Moore A/K/A Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1972Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 ; Moore v. State, 7 Md. 1972Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 ; Moore v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.