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 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Carr Lowery Glass Co.green2 sentences2023Benefits and Liability for Occupational Hearing Loss In provisions separate from those that generally concern accidental injuries and occupational diseases, the Act provides that, in some circumstances, a loss of hearing due to exposure to harmful noise at the workplace – sometimes referred to in the statute as “occupational deafness” or “occupational hearing loss” – is compensable under the Act. 1 LE §9-505; see Green v. Carr Lowery Glass Co., 398 Md. 512, 516-18 (2007). 2020As such, “an employee who suffered the total loss of hearing in both ears due to a one-time accident that created a loud blast, for example, would have received compensation.” Id. at 517 , 921 A.2d at 238 (citation omitted).7 In 1951, the Workers’ In 1939, the Workers’ Compensation Act “was amended to provide compensation 7 for injuries arising from occupational disease. . . . [T]he 1939 law did not permit compensation for occupational disease unless and until the employee was no longer able - 19 - Compensation Act was expanded to provide compensation for hearing loss as an occupational diseas | 2 | 2 |
Belschner v. Anchor Post Products, Inc.green2 sentences2020In Belschner, a man who worked as a saw operator filed a worker’s compensation claim “for the loss of hearing he sustained as a result of exposure to high level industrial noises.” 227 Md. at 90 . 1985The issue considered in Belschner was “whether an employee, who has continued to perform his work in a satisfactory manner without loss of wages in the same occupation he had been engaged in for years, is entitled to workmen’s compensation for the loss of hearing he sustained as a result of exposure to high level industrial noises.” (Emphasis added.) 227 Md. at 90 , 175 A.2d 419 . | 1 | 3 |
Yox v. Tru-Rol Co.green2 sentences2020See Green, 398 Md. at 517 , 921 A.2d at 238 (citation omitted); see also Yox v. Tru-Rol Co., Inc., 380 Md. 326, 332 , 844 A.2d 1151, 1155 (2004). 2020See Green, 398 Md. at 517 , 921 A.2d at 238 (citation omitted); see also Yox v. Tru-Rol Co., Inc., 380 Md. 326, 332 , 844 A.2d 1151, 1155 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2019See Gilbert, et al., Maryland Workers’ Compensation Handbook, § 9.03[4][b] at 9-13; see, e.g., Anderson, 192 Md. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2017People v. Anderson, 358 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 295 Ill.Dec. 557 , 833 N.E.2d 390, 395 (2005). 2017People v. Anderson, 358 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 295 Ill.Dec. 557 , 833 N.E.2d 390, 395 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2013While our cases have recognized a “difference” between the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, and the “policies” behind these constitutional guarantees, we have never suggested, that one right is “superior” or “greater” than the other, nor is there any support in our cases for the notion that because a Sixth Amendment right may be involved, it is more difficult to waive than the Fifth Amendment counterpart. 487 U.S. at 297-98 , 108 S.Ct. 2389 (emphasis supplied). 2013While our cases have recognized a “difference” between the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, and the “policies” behind these constitutional guarantees, we have never suggested, that one right is “superior” or “greater” than the other, nor is there any support in our cases for the notion that because a Sixth Amendment right may be involved, it is more difficult to waive than the Fifth Amendment counterpart. 487 U.S. at 297-98 , 108 S.Ct. 2389 (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.