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 1970–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Id. at 523, 527, 529 , 898 A.2d 419 . 2009Id. at 523, 527, 529 , 898 A.2d 419 . | 1 | 1 |
Contee v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Cantee v. State, 223 Md. 575, 580 , 165 A.2d 889 (1960) (concluding that the defendant “was denied an opportunity ... to frame additional proper voir dire questions ... and the court failed to ask, on its own motion, as it should have done, a proper question designed to ascertain the existence of cause for disqualification. ...”). *62 On the merits, we agree with Logan that the subject matter of the NCR defense was of considerable importance, and it should have been carefully explored on voir dire. 2005See Cantee v. State, 223 Md. 575, 580 , 165 A.2d 889 (1960) (concluding that the defendant “was denied an opportunity ... to frame additional proper voir dire questions ... and the court failed to ask, on its own motion, as it should have done, a proper question designed to ascertain the existence of cause for disqualification. ...”). *62 On the merits, we agree with Logan that the subject matter of the NCR defense was of considerable importance, and it should have been carefully explored on voir dire. | 1 | 1 |
Bond v. Nibco, Inc.green2 sentences1997See Bond v. Nibco, Inc., 96 Md.App. 127, 133 , 623 A.2d 731 (1993). 1997See Bond v. Nibco, Inc., 96 Md.App. 127, 133 , 623 A.2d 731 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Stategreen1 sentence1970Such presumption goes to jurisdiction or venue, not to guilt. 5 We note the questions whether such presumption should be extended to cover a situation where the defendant-forger was not himself the utterer, or even whether a presumption can be based on the fact that the forged checks were found in a forged state in Maryland were said in Cole , at 117, to be open to question and not therein answered. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. State
green
2 sentences2006On that basis, if the court below was not satisfied with the form, it could have reformulated the questions or allowed defense counsel to do so.” Logan, 164 Md.App. at 61 , 882 A.2d at 364 . 2006On that basis, if the court below was not satisfied with the form, it could have reformulated the questions or allowed defense counsel to do so.” Logan, 164 Md.App. at 61 , 882 A.2d at 364 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Condon v. State
green
2 sentences1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. 1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Department of Natural Resources v. Welsh
green
2 sentences1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. 1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
green
2 sentences1999ARA, 344 Md. at 92 , 685 A.2d 435 . 1999ARA, 344 Md. at 92 , 685 A.2d 435 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Peterson
green
2 sentences1989Maryland Rule 4-848(c) provides that in capital sentencing cases and in the absence of disqualification or disability, “the judge who presides at trial shall preside at the sentencing proceeding.” Without deciding the questions of whether that rule has direct application to a second sentencing hearing after remand, or is subject to the same interpretation this Court recently afforded Rule 4-846(c) in State v. Peterson, 315 Md. 73 , 553 A.2d 672 (1989), it is at least clear that there is a stated preference that the judge who presided at the trial also preside at sentencing. 1989Maryland Rule 4-848(c) provides that in capital sentencing cases and in the absence of disqualification or disability, “the judge who presides at trial shall preside at the sentencing proceeding.” Without deciding the questions of whether that rule has direct application to a second sentencing hearing after remand, or is subject to the same interpretation this Court recently afforded Rule 4-846(c) in State v. Peterson, 315 Md. 73 , 553 A.2d 672 (1989), it is at least clear that there is a stated preference that the judge who presided at the trial also preside at sentencing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.