6 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 1908–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2011We discussed this standard at length in Dove : This Court announced the standard for evaluating harmless error in Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659 , 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976): *1054 [W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed `harmless' and a reversal is mandated. 2011We discussed this standard at length in Dove : This Court announced the standard for evaluating harmless error in Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659 , 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976): *1054 [W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed `harmless' and a reversal is mandated. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 722, 824 A.2d at 141 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vanderlinde
green
2 sentences2018This Court announced this principle in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde , 364 Md. 376 , 418, 773 A.2d 463 , 488 (2001), stating: Upon reflection as a Court, in disciplinary matters, we will not in the future attempt to distinguish between degrees of intentional dishonesty based upon convictions, testimonials[,] or other factors. 2018This Court announced this principle in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde , 364 Md. 376 , 418, 773 A.2d 463 , 488 (2001), stating: Upon reflection as a Court, in disciplinary matters, we will not in the future attempt to distinguish between degrees of intentional dishonesty based upon convictions, testimonials[,] or other factors. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1961On rehearing, in 349 U. S. 294 , the Court declared that all federal, state or local laws permitting such discrimination must yield to the announced principle. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Bolling v. Sharpe
green
1 sentence1961In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 , it was held that racial segregation in a public school in the District of Columbia was not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective and was violative of due process. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Adler v. Robert Portner Brewing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1908In Adler v. Robert Partner Braving Co., 65 Md. 27 , this Court announced a rule which is so conclusive of this question that we will quote from it at some length. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.