proponent rule (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

proponent rule in Maryland

6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2016 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Dishman v. Stategreen
md · 1998 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998) (observing that, in considering whether a requested jury instruction was generated by the evidence, a reviewing court must determine whether the proponent of the instruction "produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired”).

2016See Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998) (observing that, in considering whether a requested jury instruction was generated by the evidence, a reviewing court must determine whether the proponent of the instruction "produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired”).

11
North River Ins. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimoregreen
md · 1996 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996Absent a different allocation of the burden of persuasion by the substantive statute, both the burden of production and persuasion remain with the Secretary." 343 Md. at 34, 684 A.2d at 853 (quoting Bunge, 638 F.2d at 838 ).

1996Absent a different allocation of the burden of persuasion by the sub stantive statute, both the burden of production and persuasion remain with the Secretary.” 343 Md. at 34, 684 A.2d at 853 (quoting Bunge, 638 F.2d at 838 ).

11
Carbon v. Physical Therapists Examining Boardgreen
dc · 1968 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Bunge, supra; see also Carbon v. Physical Therapists Examining Bd., 242 A.2d 835 (D.C.1968).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
BUNGE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents green
ca5 · 1981
2 sentences

1996As the Fifth Circuit observed in Bunge, supra, "[u]nder 5 U.S.C.A. § 556 (d), [14] the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof, except as otherwise provided by statute.

1996As the Fifth Circuit observed in Bunge, supra, “[u]nder 5 U.S.C.A. § 556 (d),[ 14 ] the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof, except as otherwise provided by statute.

21995–1996
State v. Hawkins green
md · 1992
2 sentences

2016Given that the remedy for an instructional error is typically reversal and the opportunity for a new trial, see, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 290-91 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992), whereas the remedy for evidentiary insufficiency is outright acquittal, see, e.g., Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 1073 , 185 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013), we would face a dilemma if Nottingham’s instructional claim had merit, because the possibility would arise of reversing a conviction and ordering a retrial, despite having found that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a State-requested jury instructi

2016Given that the remedy for an instructional error is typically reversal and the opportunity for a new trial, see, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 290-91 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992), whereas the remedy for evidentiary insufficiency is outright acquittal, see, e.g., Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 1073 , 185 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013), we would face a dilemma if Nottingham’s instructional claim had merit, because the possibility would arise of reversing a conviction and ordering a retrial, despite having found that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a State-requested jury instructi

12016–2016
Evans v. Michigan green
scotus · 2013
2 sentences

2016Given that the remedy for an instructional error is typically reversal and the opportunity for a new trial, see, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 290-91 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992), whereas the remedy for evidentiary insufficiency is outright acquittal, see, e.g., Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 1073 , 185 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013), we would face a dilemma if Nottingham’s instructional claim had merit, because the possibility would arise of reversing a conviction and ordering a retrial, despite having found that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a State-requested jury instructi

2016Given that the remedy for an instructional error is typically reversal and the opportunity for a new trial, see, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 290-91 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992), whereas the remedy for evidentiary insufficiency is outright acquittal, see, e.g., Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 1073 , 185 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013), we would face a dilemma if Nottingham’s instructional claim had merit, because the possibility would arise of reversing a conviction and ordering a retrial, despite having found that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a State-requested jury instructi

12016–2016
Grandison v. State green
md · 1995
2 sentences

2012Grandison, 341 Md. at 225 , 670 A.2d at 422 .

2012Grandison, 341 Md. at 225 , 670 A.2d at 422 .

12012–2012
Commissioner of Labor & Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. green
md · 1996
1 sentence

1996Absent a different allocation of the burden of persuasion by the substantive statute, both the burden of production and persuasion remain with the Secretary." 343 Md. at 34, 684 A.2d at 853 (quoting Bunge, 638 F.2d at 838 ).

11996–1996
Domingues v. Johnson green
md · 1991
2 sentences

1995Domingues, 323 Md. at 496 , 593 A.2d 1133 .

1995Domingues, 323 Md. at 496 , 593 A.2d 1133 .

11995–1995
Adcock v. State neutral
mdctspecapp · 1986
1 sentence

1992Pointing out that such a ruling is always one for the court to make, as a matter of law, we held, at 66 Md.App. 456 , 504 A.2d 1160 : “It is necessary that there be generated a legally sufficient (prima facie) case, with the burden of production squarely allocated to the proponent of the defense, as to both 1) improper inducing behavior on the part of the government and 2) the actual succumbing to that inducement on the part of the defendant. *77 We have no difficulty in holding in the case at bar that there was an utter failure of the appellant to make out a prima facie case of entrapment.” F

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

AZ 304 (1980–2026) VA 205 (1992–2026) TX 153 (1988–2025) MO 63 (1968–2024) NY 60 (1895–2026) OH 59 (1997–2026) CA 52 (1915–2026) KY 28 (2002–2025) MI 27 (1975–2025) IL 21 (1887–2025) NV 20 (1998–2021) PA 19 (1985–2025) WA 18 (1975–2023) FL 18 (1971–2023) CO 12 (1986–2025) OR 11 (1984–2025) SC 11 (1997–2026) NM 10 (1985–2025) CT 7 (2000–2021) IN 6 (1986–2019) DC 6 (1980–2025) MN 6 (1986–1991) MD 6 (1992–2016) MA 6 (1997–2016) DE 5 (1989–2022) WY 5 (1979–1982) TN 5 (1939–2021) NC 4 (1992–2011) ID 4 (1960–2023) RI 4 (2001–2007) VT 4 (2024–2026) AR 4 (2002–2025) MS 4 (1990–2010) GA 3 (2014–2024) NJ 2 (1993–1995) WI 2 (2006–2011) LA 2 (1975–1996) NE 2 (2023–2024) OK 2 (1992–1993) AL 2 (1982–2011) ND 2 (2012–2012) SD 2 (1917–2004) VI 2 (2012–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check