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 2008–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 1300 v. Mass Transit Administrationgreen1 sentence2019See Prince George’s County Police Civilian Employees Ass’n, 477 Md. at 193; Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 1300 v. Mass Transit Administration, 305 Md. 380, 388 (1986) (“MTA- Smith”)2; International Association of Firefighters, Local 1619 v. Prince George’s County, 74 Md. | 1 | 1 |
International Ass'n of Firefighters v. Prince George's Countygreen1 sentence2019See Prince George’s County Police Civilian Employees Ass’n, 477 Md. at 193; Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 1300 v. Mass Transit Administration, 305 Md. 380, 388 (1986) (“MTA- Smith”)2; International Association of Firefighters, Local 1619 v. Prince George’s County, 74 Md. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2010In his motion, he claimed, inter alia, that (1) there was no substantial basis for the judge issuing the search warrant to find probable cause to approve the search of the residence, and (2) the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3420 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677, 698 (1984), did not save the seizure. *407 In a written order issued on 5 February 2009, the trial court denied Marshall’s motion with respect to the evidence seized from the vehicle, but granted the motion with respect to the evidence seized f 2010In his motion, he claimed, inter alia, that (1) there was no substantial basis for the judge issuing the search warrant to find probable cause to approve the search of the residence, and (2) the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3420 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677, 698 (1984), did not save the seizure. *407 In a written order issued on 5 February 2009, the trial court denied Marshall’s motion with respect to the evidence seized from the vehicle, but granted the motion with respect to the evidence seized f | 1 | 1 |
Larry Karchmar, Ltd. v. Nevoralgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 225. 2010Id. at 225. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Potomac Valley Orthopaedic v. Board of Physicians
neutral
1 sentence2013Upon the Court’s contextual review of the record, it concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks infringed upon Marshall’s privilege against self-incrimination, guaranteed by Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights 15 and Section 9-107 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. 16 Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Marshall v. State
green
2 sentences2013The circuit court, however, denied Marshall’s motion, finding that the prosecutor’s remarks were mere “rhetorical flourish.” Id. at 256 , 999 A.2d 1029 . 2013The circuit court, however, denied Marshall’s motion, finding that the prosecutor’s remarks were mere “rhetorical flourish.” Id. at 256 , 999 A.2d 1029 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2013The court next ruled that class certification was not appropriate in any event because Safeway’s tender of “the funds that you all by your stipulation have agreed were wrongfully withheld from Ms. Marshall’s pay” had made “her whole financially.” Under the authority of Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 200 Md.App. 285 , 27 A.3d 583 (2011), the court ruled that the tender had mooted Marshall’s claim for contract damages and, accordingly, the motion for class certification had to be denied. 8 Alternatively, the court ruled that class certification was not appropriate because the commonality prong of 2013The court next ruled that class certification was not appropriate in any event because Safeway’s tender of “the funds that you all by your stipulation have agreed were wrongfully withheld from Ms. Marshall’s pay” had made “her whole financially.” Under the authority of Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 200 Md.App. 285 , 27 A.3d 583 (2011), the court ruled that the tender had mooted Marshall’s claim for contract damages and, accordingly, the motion for class certification had to be denied. 8 Alternatively, the court ruled that class certification was not appropriate because the commonality prong of | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lloyd v. State
green
2 sentences2008To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Lloyd v. State, 219 Md. 343 , 149 A.2d 369 (1959). 2008To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Lloyd v. State, 219 Md. 343 , 149 A.2d 369 (1959). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.