6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dimensions Health Corp. v. Maryland Insurance Administrationgreen2 sentences2022Admin., 374 Md. 1, 17 , 821 A.2d 40, 50 (2003). 2022Admin., 374 Md. 1, 17 , 821 A.2d 40, 50 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Rehaif v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022The Court defined the presumption of scienter as “a presumption that criminal statutes require the degree of knowledge sufficient to ‘mak[e] a person legally responsible for the consequences of his or her act or omission.’” Id. at ___, 139 S. Ct. at 2195 (citation omitted). 25 *** (c)(1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person was previously convicted of: (i) a crime of violence; *** (iii) an offense under the laws of another state or the United States that would constitute one of the crimes listed in item (i) . . . of this paragraph if committed in this State. (2)(i) Subjec 2022The Court defined the presumption of scienter as “a presumption that criminal statutes require the degree of knowledge sufficient to ‘mak[e] a person legally responsible for the consequences of his or her act or omission.’” Id. at ___, 139 S. Ct. at 2195 (citation omitted). 25 *** (c)(1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person was previously convicted of: (i) a crime of violence; *** (iii) an offense under the laws of another state or the United States that would constitute one of the crimes listed in item (i) . . . of this paragraph if committed in this State. (2)(i) Subjec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ladner v. United States
green
2 sentences2009The policy behind the rule is " ‘that the Court will not interpret a ... criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.' " White v. State, 318 Md. at 744, 569 A.2d 1271 , quoting Simpson v. U.S., 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), which in turn quotes Ladner v. U.S., 358 U.S. 169, 178 , 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 , 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). 2009The policy behind the rule is " ‘that the Court will not interpret a ... criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.' " White v. State, 318 Md. at 744, 569 A.2d 1271 , quoting Simpson v. U.S., 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), which in turn quotes Ladner v. U.S., 358 U.S. 169, 178 , 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 , 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
White v. State
red
1 sentence2009The policy behind the rule is " ‘that the Court will not interpret a ... criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.' " White v. State, 318 Md. at 744, 569 A.2d 1271 , quoting Simpson v. U.S., 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), which in turn quotes Ladner v. U.S., 358 U.S. 169, 178 , 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 , 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Simpson v. United States
green
2 sentences2009The policy behind the rule is " ‘that the Court will not interpret a ... criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.' " White v. State, 318 Md. at 744, 569 A.2d 1271 , quoting Simpson v. U.S., 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), which in turn quotes Ladner v. U.S., 358 U.S. 169, 178 , 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 , 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). 2009The policy behind the rule is " ‘that the Court will not interpret a ... criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.' " White v. State, 318 Md. at 744, 569 A.2d 1271 , quoting Simpson v. U.S., 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), which in turn quotes Ladner v. U.S., 358 U.S. 169, 178 , 79 S.Ct. 209, 214 , 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals
red
2 sentences1995The decision must not only affect a matter in which the protestant has a specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specially affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally.” 247 Md. at 144 , 230 A.2d 289 . 1995The decision must not only affect a matter in which the protestant has a specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specially affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally.” 247 Md. at 144 , 230 A.2d 289 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bloodsworth v. State
green
2 sentences1991In Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 , 512 A.2d 1056 (1986), the Court defined the standard by which we must review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. 1991In Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 , 512 A.2d 1056 (1986), the Court defined the standard by which we must review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Frady
green
2 sentences1982In United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order for a federal habeas corpus petitioner to prove entitlement to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 he must show both "cause” for any procedural default and must also show "actual prejudice.” The Court defined an error causing actual prejudice as one that "so infected the entire trial, that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Id. at 1595. 1982In United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order for a federal habeas corpus petitioner to prove entitlement to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 he must show both "cause” for any procedural default and must also show "actual prejudice.” The Court defined an error causing actual prejudice as one that "so infected the entire trial, that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Id. at 1595. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Alston v. Forsythe
green
1 sentence1975Alston, supra, 226 Md. at 132 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.