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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . 1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . | 2 | 2 |
Langley v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Baker v. State, 332 Md. 542, 556 (1993) (declining to “reach the harmless error issue” because the Court did not find any error on the part of the circuit court). 6 “The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment . . . provides, in pertinent part, that, ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’” Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 567 (2011) (quoting U.S. CONST. amend. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Baker v. State, 332 Md. 542, 556 (1993) (declining to “reach the harmless error issue” because the Court did not find any error on the part of the circuit court). 6 “The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment . . . provides, in pertinent part, that, ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’” Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 567 (2011) (quoting U.S. CONST. amend. | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See id. at 648-49 , 961 A.2d at 1113-14 .10 In reviewing 9 We also concluded that authentication as a business record was an independent basis for authenticating the videotape because “there was enough evidence elicited at the administrative hearing to conclude that a record was made and kept in the course of the correctional institution’s regularly conducted business and that the videotape was made and kept as a valuable part of that record.” Cole, 342 Md. at 30 , 672 A.2d at 1124 . 10 We granted certiorari with respect to three questions, the third of which was: - 20 - the issue of harmless 2024See id. at 648-49 , 961 A.2d at 1113-14 .10 In reviewing 9 We also concluded that authentication as a business record was an independent basis for authenticating the videotape because “there was enough evidence elicited at the administrative hearing to conclude that a record was made and kept in the course of the correctional institution’s regularly conducted business and that the videotape was made and kept as a valuable part of that record.” Cole, 342 Md. at 30 , 672 A.2d at 1124 . 10 We granted certiorari with respect to three questions, the third of which was: - 20 - the issue of harmless | 1 | 1 |
Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Colegreen2 sentences2024See id. at 648-49 , 961 A.2d at 1113-14 .10 In reviewing 9 We also concluded that authentication as a business record was an independent basis for authenticating the videotape because “there was enough evidence elicited at the administrative hearing to conclude that a record was made and kept in the course of the correctional institution’s regularly conducted business and that the videotape was made and kept as a valuable part of that record.” Cole, 342 Md. at 30 , 672 A.2d at 1124 . 10 We granted certiorari with respect to three questions, the third of which was: - 20 - the issue of harmless 2024See id. at 648-49 , 961 A.2d at 1113-14 .10 In reviewing 9 We also concluded that authentication as a business record was an independent basis for authenticating the videotape because “there was enough evidence elicited at the administrative hearing to conclude that a record was made and kept in the course of the correctional institution’s regularly conducted business and that the videotape was made and kept as a valuable part of that record.” Cole, 342 Md. at 30 , 672 A.2d at 1124 . 10 We granted certiorari with respect to three questions, the third of which was: - 20 - the issue of harmless | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . 1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . | 1 | 1 |
Walston v. Sun Cab Co.green2 sentences1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). [8] The principle that this Court ordinarily will consider only issues raised in a certiorari petition, a cross-petition, or the order granting certiorari, was first set forth in Walston v. Sun Cab Co., 267 Md. 559, 569 , 298 A.2d 391, 397 (1973). 1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). [8] The principle that this Court ordinarily will consider only issues raised in a certiorari petition, a cross-petition, or the order granting certiorari, was first set forth in Walston v. Sun Cab Co., 267 Md. 559, 569 , 298 A.2d 391, 397 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . 1996See Clark v. State, 306 Md. 483, 492 , 510 A.2d 243, 247 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1084 , 107 S.Ct. 1286 , 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977). . | 1 | 1 |
Dempsey v. Stategreen2 sentences1986Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162 , 175 n. 6, 486 A.2d 189 , 195 n. 6 (1985); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A.2d 455, 459 (1976). 1986Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162 , 175 n. 6, 486 A.2d 189 , 195 n. 6 (1985); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A.2d 455, 459 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Guy Giovannetti and Nicholas Janis
green
2 sentences2001Ultimately, the court declined to *241 “relieve the government from the consequences of its failure to raise the issue of harmless error in its brief on appeal,” id., because it concluded that the “certainty of harmlessness” did not appear with “clarity from an unguided search of the record.” Id. 2001Ultimately, the court declined to *241 “relieve the government from the consequences of its failure to raise the issue of harmless error in its brief on appeal,” id., because it concluded that the “certainty of harmlessness” did not appear with “clarity from an unguided search of the record.” Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Darvish v. Gohari
green
2 sentences2001It seems to us, however, that the interme *65 diate appellate court did reach the issue and implicitly rejected it when stating that "[w]e are persuaded that [Respondent] was entitled to assert the qualified privilege defense, and to present evidence that the statements attributed to him were true.” Darvish, 130 Md.App. at 274 , 745 A.2d at 1138 . 17 . 2001It seems to us, however, that the interme *65 diate appellate court did reach the issue and implicitly rejected it when stating that "[w]e are persuaded that [Respondent] was entitled to assert the qualified privilege defense, and to present evidence that the statements attributed to him were true.” Darvish, 130 Md.App. at 274 , 745 A.2d at 1138 . 17 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Warrick v. State
green
2 sentences1986Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162 , 175 n. 6, 486 A.2d 189 , 195 n. 6 (1985); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A.2d 455, 459 (1976). 1986Warrick v. State, 302 Md. 162 , 175 n. 6, 486 A.2d 189 , 195 n. 6 (1985); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 547 , 380 A.2d 49, 55 (1977); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A.2d 455, 459 (1976). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.