7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1960–1977 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Stategreen2 sentences1968See Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 . 1967Ordinarily no other error will be considered by the Court of Appeals * * In Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 (1963) the Court of Appeals said that the purpose of Rule 756 f is to give the trial court an opportunity to amplify or amend its charge if it deems amplification or amendment necessary. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1977Ordinarily no other error will be considered by the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals either of its own motion or upon the suggestion of a party may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to as provided by section f of this Rule.” While the now-challenged portions of the instructions correctly state the substance of the legal test to be applied by a trial judge when ruling on a motion for a judgment of acquittal Code, Art. 27, § 593; Williams and McClelland v. State, 5 Md. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence1976Ordinarily no other error will be considered by the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals, but the appellate court, either of its own motion or upon the suggestions of a party may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to as provided by section f of this Rule.” See Taylor v. State, 17 Md. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1976The rule provides that “ordinarily” no other error will be considered on appeal, but it permits appellate courts to “take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to ....” As we noted in Brown v. State, 14 Md. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Barwood, Inc. v. Georgi
green
1 sentence1971“Upon appeal a party assigning error in the instructions shall be restricted to (1) the particular portion of the instructions given or the particular omission therefrom or the particular failure to instruct distinctly objected to before the jury retired and (2) the grounds of objection distinctly stated at the time, and no other errors or assignments of error in the instructions shall be considered by the appellate court.” 3 See Barwood Inc. v. Georgi, 253 Md. 29, 31 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly
green
1 sentence1960The appellants concede that the charge would have been proper if the plaintiff had been an adult, but say that under the holding in State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly, 216 Md. 94 , the jury should have been instructed that the defendant, having seen the two boys run across in front of her car and realizing the large number of children in the area, should have exercised a greater duty towards the infant plaintiff than she would have been required to exercise if he had been an adult, Maryland Rule 554 requires in Section d that a party state distinctly the error of any instruction to which he object | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.