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 1974–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nathaniel Clifton v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1976For example, in Clifton v. United States, 371 F. 2d 354, 360 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nance v. State
green
2 sentences1995Prior to Nance , Maryland had been “one of only a handful of states to adhere to the orthodox rule barring use of prior inconsistent statements as substan tive evidence.” Id. at 565 , 629 A.2d 633 . 1995Prior to Nance , Maryland had been “one of only a handful of states to adhere to the orthodox rule barring use of prior inconsistent statements as substan tive evidence.” Id. at 565 , 629 A.2d 633 . | 4 | 1994–1995 |
Sheppard v. State
green
2 sentences1995In no respect were those holdings qualified or hedged in by weasel words such as “in the particular circumstances of this case” or “under the unique facts of this case.” Indeed, in Sheppard v. State, 102 Md.App. 571, 572-73 , 650 A.2d 1362 (1994), we characterized the broad, bold nature of the Nance decision: Prior to the Nance opinion, Maryland had been “one of only a handful of states to adhere to the orthodox rule barring use of prior inconsistent statements as probative evidence.” ... 1995In no respect were those holdings qualified or hedged in by weasel words such as “in the particular circumstances of this case” or “under the unique facts of this case.” Indeed, in Sheppard v. State, 102 Md.App. 571, 572-73 , 650 A.2d 1362 (1994), we characterized the broad, bold nature of the Nance decision: Prior to the Nance opinion, Maryland had been “one of only a handful of states to adhere to the orthodox rule barring use of prior inconsistent statements as probative evidence.” ... | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
1 sentence1976Moreover, his findings upon disputed issues of fact are expressly stated or may be ascertainable from the record.” 378 U. S. at 378-379 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Smith v. Branscome
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Foble v. Knefely
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Clay v. State
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Green v. State
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corporation and Willard R. Custer
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Ober v. Nagy
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Custer Channel Wing Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Vandergrift v. State
neutral
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corporation
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
West v. Belle Isle Cab Co.
green
1 sentence1974United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 247 F. Supp. 481 , aff'd 376 F. 2d 675 , cert. denied 389 U. S. 850 , rehearing denied 389 U. S. 998 ; Smith v. Branscome, 251 Md. 582, 589 ; Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157-158 ; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 583 ; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361 ; West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 253 ; Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474, 485 ; Vandergrift v. State, 17 Md. | 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.