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 1915–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Pearce
red
2 sentences2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). 2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). 2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Newton v. State
green
2 sentences2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). 2001U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 342-43 , 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 , 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 263 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wade v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2000The genus now embraces: 1) traditional double jeopardy law, which never comes into play until an actual verdict has been rendered (the pleas in bar of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict); 2) mistrial-retrial law, which crept into double jeopardy law in Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), by what Justice Lewis Powell characterized as “the product of historical accident;” 1 and 3) collateral estoppel law, a third and totally distinct body of law that was only added to the “Double Jeopardy” genus by Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 2000The genus now embraces: 1) traditional double jeopardy law, which never comes into play until an actual verdict has been rendered (the pleas in bar of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict); 2) mistrial-retrial law, which crept into double jeopardy law in Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), by what Justice Lewis Powell characterized as “the product of historical accident;” 1 and 3) collateral estoppel law, a third and totally distinct body of law that was only added to the “Double Jeopardy” genus by Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences2000The genus now embraces: 1) traditional double jeopardy law, which never comes into play until an actual verdict has been rendered (the pleas in bar of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict); 2) mistrial-retrial law, which crept into double jeopardy law in Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), by what Justice Lewis Powell characterized as “the product of historical accident;” 1 and 3) collateral estoppel law, a third and totally distinct body of law that was only added to the “Double Jeopardy” genus by Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 2000The genus now embraces: 1) traditional double jeopardy law, which never comes into play until an actual verdict has been rendered (the pleas in bar of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict); 2) mistrial-retrial law, which crept into double jeopardy law in Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), by what Justice Lewis Powell characterized as “the product of historical accident;” 1 and 3) collateral estoppel law, a third and totally distinct body of law that was only added to the “Double Jeopardy” genus by Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Coane v. Girard Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1999A defendant in an action based on a judgment against him may file a special plea setting up the defense of complete or partial release, or payments made since the rendition of the judgment.” Id. at 583 , 35 A.2d at 452 (citing, inter alia, Poe § 404C). 1999A defendant in an action based on a judgment against him may file a special plea setting up the defense of complete or partial release, or payments made since the rendition of the judgment.” Id. at 583 , 35 A.2d at 452 (citing, inter alia, Poe § 404C). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Arundel Park Corp.
green
2 sentences1975The Court of Appeals found no new cause of action and no bar of limitations since "the theory of the action has always been and still is based upon negligence ... and the only change is in the allegation which, in effect anticipates a defense raised by the pleas of immunity...." 218 Md. at 489 . 1975The Court of Appeals found no new cause of action and no bar of limitations since “the theory of the action has always been and still is based upon negligence ... and the only change is in the allegation which, in effect anticipates a defense raised by the pleas of immunity.. . .” 218 Md. at 489 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Dyal v. Dyal
green
2 sentences1944A defendant in an action based on a judgment against him may file a special plea setting up the defense of complete or partial release, or payments made since the rendition of the judgment. 2 Poe, Pleading and Practice, Sec. 404C; 3 Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Sec. 1461; Dyal v. Dyal, 65 Ga. App. 359 , 16 S. E. 2d 53 . 1944A defendant in an action based on a judgment against him may file a special plea setting up the defense of complete or partial release, or payments made since the rendition of the judgment. 2 Poe, Pleading and Practice, Sec. 404C; 3 Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Sec. 1461; Dyal v. Dyal, 65 Ga. App. 359 , 16 S. E. 2d 53 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Glenn v. Williams
green
1 sentence1915The Court said: “By these pleas all matter of abatement previously pleaded was effectually waived; for no principle in the system of special pleading is better settled than that you cannot plead together both matters in abatement and in bar; and that by pleading in bar, all previous pleas in abatement are waived and abandoned, and cannot be again resumed.” In Glenn, Trustee, v. Williams, 60 Md. 93 , it was again said: “Matters in abatement and matters in bar cannot be pleaded together; the pleas in bar supersede those in abatement” * * * citing Step, on Pl. 430, and Cruzen v. McKaig ; see also | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.