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 1990–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Payne & Bond
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 687 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Geders v. United States
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mejia v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 525 , 616 A.2d 356 . 2009Id. at 525 , 616 A.2d 356 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cain v. State
green
2 sentences2002The trial court overruled defense counsel's argument, and the appellate court reversed, stating that defense counsel had stated "an objection that the existence and validity of the search warrant had not been shown by the best evidence, and that until such showing evidence of the result of the search was inadmissible." Id. at 511 . 2002The trial court overruled defense counsel’s argument, and the appellate court reversed, stating that defense counsel had stated “an objection that the existence and validity of the search warrant had not been shown by the best evidence, and that until such showing evidence of the result of the search was inadmissible.” Id. at 511 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hairston v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Hairston v. State, 68 Md.App. 230, 236 , 511 A.2d 73 , cert. denied, 307 Md. 597 , 516 A.2d 567 (1986), we held that, “[w]here an objection to opening or closing argument is sustained, ... there is nothing for this Court to review unless a request for specific relief, such as a motion for a mistrial, to strike, or for further cautionary instruction is made.” (Citation omitted.) In Hairston , we distinguished this holding from a situation in which the trial court overruled the objecting party’s exception; in that situation, the objecting party’s overruled exception would preserve the issue f 2001In Hairston v. State, 68 Md.App. 230, 236 , 511 A.2d 73 , cert. denied, 307 Md. 597 , 516 A.2d 567 (1986), we held that, “[w]here an objection to opening or closing argument is sustained, ... there is nothing for this Court to review unless a request for specific relief, such as a motion for a mistrial, to strike, or for further cautionary instruction is made.” (Citation omitted.) In Hairston , we distinguished this holding from a situation in which the trial court overruled the objecting party’s exception; in that situation, the objecting party’s overruled exception would preserve the issue f | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Holmes v. State
green
2 sentences1998Appellant argues that the court erred by allowing Ms. *608 Burgess’s testimony under Rule 5-802.1(b), because Howell’s statement was made after her motive to lie arose and because Howell admitted to fabrication when she admitted that, initially, she had deliberately omitted any reference to her children or Glen McCray. 2 We hold that the court did err in allowing Ms. Burgess to testify about Howell’s prior consistent statements, and that the Court of Appeals’s recent decision in Holmes v. State, 350 Md. 412 , 712 A.2d 554 (1998), is dispositive on this issue. 1998Appellant argues that the court erred by allowing Ms. *608 Burgess’s testimony under Rule 5-802.1(b), because Howell’s statement was made after her motive to lie arose and because Howell admitted to fabrication when she admitted that, initially, she had deliberately omitted any reference to her children or Glen McCray. 2 We hold that the court did err in allowing Ms. Burgess to testify about Howell’s prior consistent statements, and that the Court of Appeals’s recent decision in Holmes v. State, 350 Md. 412 , 712 A.2d 554 (1998), is dispositive on this issue. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hunter v. State
green
1 sentence1990The court overruled defense counsel’s objection to the question and the defendant responded, “To see if he would defend me.” Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.