public records exception (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

public records exception in Maryland

7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2018 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.green
md · 1985 · cited in 6 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–2018
2 sentences

2018The Court concluded that public records carry a "presumption of reliability" and that the public records exception "appropriately allows the reception of reliable facts[.]" Id. at 612 , 495 A.2d 348 .

2018The Court concluded that public records carry a "presumption of reliability" and that the public records exception "appropriately allows the reception of reliable facts[.]" Id. at 612 , 495 A.2d 348 .

26
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstronggreen
md · 1992 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 112-13 , 604 A.2d 47, 49 (1992) (holding that a trial judge “has the discretion to exclude a document that meets the technical requirements of a business record when the objecting party persuades the judge that the document lacks the degree of reliability and trustworthiness that business records are ordinarily assumed to possess.”) (footnote omitted); Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc., 303 Md. 581, 604-605 , 495 A.2d 348, 360 (1985) (applying the public records exception to the hearsay rule and differentiating between “fact” and “opinion”);

2006See Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 112-13 , 604 A.2d 47, 49 (1992) (holding that a trial judge “has the discretion to exclude a document that meets the technical requirements of a business record when the objecting party persuades the judge that the document lacks the degree of reliability and trustworthiness that business records are ordinarily assumed to possess.”) (footnote omitted); Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc., 303 Md. 581, 604-605 , 495 A.2d 348, 360 (1985) (applying the public records exception to the hearsay rule and differentiating between “fact” and “opinion”);

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Ali v. State green
md · 1988
2 sentences

2013Id. at 305 , 550 A.2d 925 .

2013Id. at 305 , 550 A.2d 925 .

12013–2013

Where else courts name it

LA 119 (1957–2025) OH 65 (1991–2026) TX 43 (1983–2026) FL 42 (1971–2025) IN 21 (1982–2024) CA 20 (1994–2026) WA 18 (1984–2026) PA 18 (1971–2025) IL 16 (1978–2024) NM 15 (1995–2020) MI 11 (1992–2025) AZ 11 (1989–2022) WI 10 (1998–2025) NJ 10 (2002–2024) MA 8 (1985–2025) AK 8 (1988–2025) DC 7 (1991–2009) MD 7 (1990–2018) TN 6 (1999–2018) NC 6 (2006–2026) ID 6 (1990–2026) OR 6 (1992–2025) HI 5 (1996–2019) ME 5 (1984–2022) NV 5 (2014–2017) GA 5 (1998–2016) MS 4 (2003–2021) IA 4 (1982–2025) SD 4 (2004–2026) OK 4 (1936–2014) CO 4 (1987–2015) VA 3 (2003–2019) SC 3 (2008–2014) NY 3 (2007–2010) CT 2 (1970–1997) UT 2 (1987–2017) AL 2 (2000–2000) VT 2 (2000–2026) NE 2 (1938–2013) ND 2 (2009–2013) WV 2 (1999–2002) MN 2 (1984–2024) DE 2 (1986–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check