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 1996–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Matuskygreen2 sentences2023Applying that framework, the Court concluded that the declarant-witness’s statement should not have been admitted because the evidence was insufficient to prove that a reasonable person in his position “would have understood the 16 As we explain infra, the Supreme Court of Maryland would modify the analysis on this final step by adopting the Williamson framework and clarifying that “‘proximity’ between the self-inculpatory and ‘collateral’ portions no longer guarantees admissibility.” State v. Matusky, 343 Md. 467, 491 (1996). 2023Applying that framework, the Court concluded that the declarant-witness’s statement should not have been admitted because the evidence was insufficient to prove that a reasonable person in his position “would have understood the 16 As we explain infra, the Supreme Court of Maryland would modify the analysis on this final step by adopting the Williamson framework and clarifying that “‘proximity’ between the self-inculpatory and ‘collateral’ portions no longer guarantees admissibility.” State v. Matusky, 343 Md. 467, 491 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Tschetter v. Bervengreen2 sentences2001See Tschetter v. Berven, 621 N.W.2d 372 (S.D.2001); SEC v. Shreveport Wireless Cable Television Partnership, [1998 Transfer Binder] Fed. 2001See Tschetter v. Berven, 621 N.W.2d 372 (S.D.2001); SEC v. Shreveport Wireless Cable Television Partnership, [1998 Transfer Binder] Fed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Masongreen2 sentences1996App.1994) (same); State v. Mason, 194 W.Va. 221 , 460 S.E.2d 36, 45 (1995) (adopting the Williamson test). 1996App.1994) (same); State v. Mason, 194 W.Va. 221 , 460 S.E.2d 36, 45 (1995) (adopting the Williamson test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 547, 993 A.2d 626 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Michigan v. Summers
green
2 sentences2007The State argues that the police had the right to stop Williamson, bring him back inside the house, and detain him while the search of the house was conducted, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 , 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). 2007The State argues that the police had the right to stop Williamson, bring him back inside the house, and detain him while the search of the house was conducted, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 , 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Great Lakes Chemical Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
green
2 sentences2001In Great Lakes Chemical Corporation v. Monsanto Company, supra, 96 F.Supp.2d 376 , the court was asked to decide whether interests in a limited liability company were securities and, thus, whether the sale of those interests was governed by federal securities law. 2001In Great Lakes Chemical Corporation v. Monsanto Company, supra, 96 F.Supp.2d 376 , the court was asked to decide whether interests in a limited liability company were securities and, thus, whether the sale of those interests was governed by federal securities law. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Rivenbark
green
2 sentences1996Rivenbark, 311 Md. at 149 , 533 A.2d at 272 . [14] Justice O'Connor expressly stated in Part II.C of her opinion that "we need not address Williamson's claim that ... the statements were also made inadmissible by the Confrontation Clause[.]" ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 . 1996Rivenbark, 311 Md. at 149 , 533 A.2d at 272 . [14] Justice O'Connor expressly stated in Part II.C of her opinion that "we need not address Williamson's claim that ... the statements were also made inadmissible by the Confrontation Clause[.]" ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Williamson v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Justice O’Connor expressly stated in Part II.C of her opinion that "we need not address Williamson's claim that ... the statements were •also made inadmissible by the Confrontation Clause[.]” 512 U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 . 1996Rivenbark, 311 Md. at 149 , 533 A.2d at 272 . [14] Justice O'Connor expressly stated in Part II.C of her opinion that "we need not address Williamson's claim that ... the statements were also made inadmissible by the Confrontation Clause[.]" ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Avila v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Because in the case before us we conclude that the trial court failed to properly analyze the declaration under the hearsay rules, we also need not reach the Confrontation Clause issue. [15] The dissent relies on Chandler v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 270 , 455 S.E.2d 219 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 233 , 133 L.Ed.2d 162 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pacheco v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Because in the case before us we conclude that the trial court failed to properly analyze the declaration under the hearsay rules, we also need not reach the Confrontation Clause issue. [15] The dissent relies on Chandler v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 270 , 455 S.E.2d 219 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 233 , 133 L.Ed.2d 162 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Chandler v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1996Because in the case before us we conclude that the trial court failed to properly analyze the declaration under the hearsay rules, we also need not reach the Confrontation Clause issue. [15] The dissent relies on Chandler v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 270 , 455 S.E.2d 219 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 233 , 133 L.Ed.2d 162 (1995). 1996Because in the case before us we conclude that the trial court failed to properly analyze the declaration under the hearsay rules, we also need not reach the Confrontation Clause issue. [15] The dissent relies on Chandler v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 270 , 455 S.E.2d 219 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 233 , 133 L.Ed.2d 162 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.