43 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lloyd v. Board of Supervisors of Electionsgreen2 sentences2018As we explained in Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez , 424 Md. 701 , 710, 37 A.3d 972 (2012), we will depart " 'from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions,' " only when " 'the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest ....' " (quoting Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors , 206 Md. 36 , 43, 111 A.2d 379 (1954) ). 2018As we explained in Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez , 424 Md. 701 , 710, 37 A.3d 972 (2012), we will depart " 'from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions,' " only when " 'the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest ....' " (quoting Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors , 206 Md. 36 , 43, 111 A.2d 379 (1954) ). | 6 | 33 |
State v. Fickergreen2 sentences2013See Robinson, 317 Md. at 375-76 , 564 A.2d at 397 ; Ficker, 266 Md. at 507 , 295 A.2d at 235 (“an appeal, even though moot, will not be dismissed where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is both imperative and manifest.”); Lloyd, 206 Md. at 43 , 111 A.2d at 381-382 . 2013See Robinson, 317 Md. at 375-76 , 564 A.2d at 397 ; Ficker, 266 Md. at 507 , 295 A.2d at 235 (“an appeal, even though moot, will not be dismissed where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is both imperative and manifest.”); Lloyd, 206 Md. at 43 , 111 A.2d at 381-382 . | 3 | 6 |
Reyes v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences1979It is instructive to note what Judge Hammond said for the Court in Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), quoted for the Court by Judge Digges in Reyes v. Prince George's County, 281 Md. 279, 300 , 380 A.2d 12 (1977): [T]he better considered and reasoned cases take the view that only where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions. 1979It is instructive to note what Judge Hammond said for the Court in Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), quoted for the Court by Judge Digges in Reyes v. Prince George's County, 281 Md. 279, 300 , 380 A.2d 12 (1977): [T]he better considered and reasoned cases take the view that only where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions. | 2 | 5 |
J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commissiongreen2 sentences2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n 2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n | 1 | 5 |
Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2005There are, however, “ ‘rare instances,’ ” in which “ ‘the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest [and requires] a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions.’ ” Mercy Hosp. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556, 562-63 , 510 A.2d 562 (1986) (quoting Lloyd v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore County, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954)). 2005There are, however, “ ‘rare instances,’ ” in which “ ‘the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest [and requires] a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions.’ ” Mercy Hosp. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556, 562-63 , 510 A.2d 562 (1986) (quoting Lloyd v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore County, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954)). | 1 | 4 |
In Re Justin D.green2 sentences2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n 2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n | 1 | 3 |
Suter v. Stuckeygreen2 sentences2026Such cases are “rare,” Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 250 (1996), and must implicate “a matter of important public policy[,]” such as “protection from domestic violence[,]” Suter, 402 Md. at 220-21 , issues related to an indigent individual’s eligibility for representation by a public defender, Off. of Pub. 2009See, e.g., Suter, 402 Md. at 220 , 935 A.2d at 736 ; Roth, 398 Md. at 143-44 , 919 A.2d at 1221 ; Matthews, 368 Md. at 96-97 , 792 A.2d at 303 ; Reyes v. Prince George’s County, 281 Md. 279 , 300 n. 18, 380 A.2d 12 , 24 n. 18 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
Coburn v. Coburngreen1 sentence2026Such cases are “rare,” Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 250 (1996), and must implicate “a matter of important public policy[,]” such as “protection from domestic violence[,]” Suter, 402 Md. at 220-21 , issues related to an indigent individual’s eligibility for representation by a public defender, Off. of Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Arrington v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen1 sentence2026That exception applies only “when the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.” Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP, 492 Md. 590 , 600 (2025) (citation modified) (quoting Arrington v. Dep’t of Human Res., 402 Md. 79, 91 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Reinstatement of Yatesgreen1 sentence2022Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 368 Md. 71, 96 , 792 A.2d 288 , 302–03 (2002) (citations and quotations omitted); see also In re: O.P., 470 Md. 225, 249 , 235 A.3d 40 , 54 (2020) (“there are several exceptions to the mootness doctrine[]”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: O.P.green1 sentence2022Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 368 Md. 71, 96 , 792 A.2d 288 , 302–03 (2002) (citations and quotations omitted); see also In re: O.P., 470 Md. 225, 249 , 235 A.3d 40 , 54 (2020) (“there are several exceptions to the mootness doctrine[]”). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Leegreen2 sentences2013See Robinson, 317 Md. at 375-76 , 564 A.2d at 397 ; Ficker, 266 Md. at 507 , 295 A.2d at 235 (“an appeal, even though moot, will not be dismissed where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is both imperative and manifest.”); Lloyd, 206 Md. at 43 , 111 A.2d at 381-382 . 2013See Robinson, 317 Md. at 375-76 , 564 A.2d at 397 ; Ficker, 266 Md. at 507 , 295 A.2d at 235 (“an appeal, even though moot, will not be dismissed where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is both imperative and manifest.”); Lloyd, 206 Md. at 43 , 111 A.2d at 381-382 . | 1 | 1 |
Hammen v. Baltimore County Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2007See also Hammen v. Baltimore Police, supra, 373 Md. at 450 , 818 A.2d at 1131 . 2007See also Hammen v. Baltimore Police, supra, 373 Md. at 450 , 818 A.2d at 1131 . | 1 | 1 |
Baltimore Sun Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences2002We have the constitutional authority, however, to express *303 our views on the merits of a moot case, see id.; Baltimore Sun Co. v. State, 340 Md. 437, 454 , 667 A.2d 166, 174 (1995) (citing Mercy Hosp., Inc. ), and will exercise that authority in instances where: the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.... 2002We have the constitutional authority, however, to express *303 our views on the merits of a moot case, see id.; Baltimore Sun Co. v. State, 340 Md. 437, 454 , 667 A.2d 166, 174 (1995) (citing Mercy Hosp., Inc. ), and will exercise that authority in instances where: the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.... | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery County v. McNeecegreen2 sentences1995We applied the same test in Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161, 170-71 , 642 A.2d 232, 237 (1994) (whether a binding plea agreement precludes a trial court from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to that agreement); Thanos v. State, 332 Md. 511, 521 , 632 A.2d 768, 772 (1993) (whether a defendant sentenced to death may waive time limitation on execution of death penalty); Montgomery County v. McNeece, 311 Md. 194, 200-01 , 533 A.2d 671, 674 (1987) (whether Maryland Rule 2-551, dealing with in banc review, is constitutional). 1995We applied the same test in Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161, 170-71 , 642 A.2d 232, 237 (1994) (whether a binding plea agreement precludes a trial court from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to that agreement); Thanos v. State, 332 Md. 511, 521 , 632 A.2d 768, 772 (1993) (whether a defendant sentenced to death may waive time limitation on execution of death penalty); Montgomery County v. McNeece, 311 Md. 194, 200-01 , 533 A.2d 671, 674 (1987) (whether Maryland Rule 2-551, dealing with in banc review, is constitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Thanos v. Stategreen2 sentences1995We applied the same test in Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161, 170-71 , 642 A.2d 232, 237 (1994) (whether a binding plea agreement precludes a trial court from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to that agreement); Thanos v. State, 332 Md. 511, 521 , 632 A.2d 768, 772 (1993) (whether a defendant sentenced to death may waive time limitation on execution of death penalty); Montgomery County v. McNeece, 311 Md. 194, 200-01 , 533 A.2d 671, 674 (1987) (whether Maryland Rule 2-551, dealing with in banc review, is constitutional). 1995We applied the same test in Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161, 170-71 , 642 A.2d 232, 237 (1994) (whether a binding plea agreement precludes a trial court from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to that agreement); Thanos v. State, 332 Md. 511, 521 , 632 A.2d 768, 772 (1993) (whether a defendant sentenced to death may waive time limitation on execution of death penalty); Montgomery County v. McNeece, 311 Md. 194, 200-01 , 533 A.2d 671, 674 (1987) (whether Maryland Rule 2-551, dealing with in banc review, is constitutional). | 1 | 1 |
| Chertkov v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albert S. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
green
2 sentences2007In Cottman , the Court of Appeals recognized that “[tjhere is a public benefit derived from published opinions, which is the reason appellate courts are sometimes willing to decide moot questions where it appears that there are important issues of public interest raised which merit an expression of our views for the guidance of courts and litigants in the future.” Id. at 15 (Internal quotes and citations omitted.) This Court may reach the merits of a moot question “where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.... ” 2007In Cottman , the Court of Appeals recognized that “[tjhere is a public benefit derived from published opinions, which is the reason appellate courts are sometimes willing to decide moot questions where it appears that there are important issues of public interest raised which merit an expression of our views for the guidance of courts and litigants in the future.” Id. at 15 (Internal quotes and citations omitted.) This Court may reach the merits of a moot question “where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.... ” | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Bond v. Slavin
green
2 sentences2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n 2010Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n., 368 Md. 71, 96-97 , 792 A.2d 288 (2002); In Re Justin D., 357 Md. 431, 444-45 , 745 A.2d 408 (2000); Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md.App. 340, 354 , 851 A.2d 598 (2004). *402 In Lloyd, v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379 (1954), the Court articulated the standard by which moot cases may be addressed: [O]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of n | 2 | 2006–2010 |
In re: S.F.
green
1 sentence2025“We have the constitutional authority to express our views on the merits of a moot case in instances where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.” Id. (cleaned up). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2018As we explained in Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez , 424 Md. 701 , 710, 37 A.3d 972 (2012), we will depart " 'from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions,' " only when " 'the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest ....' " (quoting Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors , 206 Md. 36 , 43, 111 A.2d 379 (1954) ). 2018As we explained in Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez , 424 Md. 701 , 710, 37 A.3d 972 (2012), we will depart " 'from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions,' " only when " 'the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest ....' " (quoting Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors , 206 Md. 36 , 43, 111 A.2d 379 (1954) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen
green
2 sentences2010The case of Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122 , 775 A.2d 1249 (2001), illuminates the “public interest” exception. 2010The case of Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122 , 775 A.2d 1249 (2001), illuminates the “public interest” exception. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Department of Human Resources v. Roth
green
2 sentences2009See, e.g., Suter, 402 Md. at 220 , 935 A.2d at 736 ; Roth, 398 Md. at 143-44 , 919 A.2d at 1221 ; Matthews, 368 Md. at 96-97 , 792 A.2d at 303 ; Reyes v. Prince George’s County, 281 Md. 279 , 300 n. 18, 380 A.2d 12 , 24 n. 18 (1977). 2009See, e.g., Suter, 402 Md. at 220 , 935 A.2d at 736 ; Roth, 398 Md. at 143-44 , 919 A.2d at 1221 ; Matthews, 368 Md. at 96-97 , 792 A.2d at 303 ; Reyes v. Prince George’s County, 281 Md. 279 , 300 n. 18, 380 A.2d 12 , 24 n. 18 (1977). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Martin
neutral
2 sentences2007Although our routine response when a case becomes moot is to dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits, which is what we did in Dept. of Health v. Martin, 348 Md. 243 , 703 A.2d 166 (1997), we have, on rare occasions, exercised our discretion to consider the merits of such an appeal "where the urgency of establishing a rule *494 of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest." Matthews v. Park & Planning, 368 Md. 71, 96 , 792 A.2d 288, 303 (2002), quoting from Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379, 382 (1954). 2007Although our routine response when a case becomes moot is to dismiss the appeal -without addressing the merits, which is what we did in Dept. of Health v. Martin, 348 Md. 243 , 703 A.2d 166 (1997), we have, on rare occasions, exercised our discretion to consider the merits of such an appeal “where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.” Matthews v. Park & Planning, 368 Md. 71, 96 , 792 A.2d 288, 303 (2002), quoting from Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379, 382 (1954). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Attorney Gen. v. AA CTY. SCHOOL BUS
green
2 sentences2007A question is moot if, at the time it is before the Court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide.’” Attorney Gen. v. Anne Arundel Co. School Bus Contractors Assn., Inc., 286 Md. 324, 327 , 407 A.2d 749 (1979). 2007A question is moot if, at the time it is before the Court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide.’” Attorney Gen. v. Anne Arundel Co. School Bus Contractors Assn., Inc., 286 Md. 324, 327 , 407 A.2d 749 (1979). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Committee for Responsible Development on 25th Street v. Mayor of Baltimore
green
2 sentences2005A case should not be dismissed as moot if the case “presents ‘unresolved issues in matters of important public concern that, if decided, will establish a rule for future conduct,’ or the issue presented is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Committee for Responsible Dev. on 25th St. v. Mayor & City Council, 137 Md.App. 60, 69 , 767 A.2d 906 (2001) (quoting Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999)). 2005A case should not be dismissed as moot if the case “presents ‘unresolved issues in matters of important public concern that, if decided, will establish a rule for future conduct,’ or the issue presented is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Committee for Responsible Dev. on 25th St. v. Mayor & City Council, 137 Md.App. 60, 69 , 767 A.2d 906 (2001) (quoting Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Stevenson v. Lanham
green
2 sentences2005A case should not be dismissed as moot if the case “presents ‘unresolved issues in matters of important public concern that, if decided, will establish a rule for future conduct,’ or the issue presented is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Committee for Responsible Dev. on 25th St. v. Mayor & City Council, 137 Md.App. 60, 69 , 767 A.2d 906 (2001) (quoting Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999)). 2005A case should not be dismissed as moot if the case “presents ‘unresolved issues in matters of important public concern that, if decided, will establish a rule for future conduct,’ or the issue presented is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Committee for Responsible Dev. on 25th St. v. Mayor & City Council, 137 Md.App. 60, 69 , 767 A.2d 906 (2001) (quoting Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
green
2 sentences2004Comm’r of the State of Maryland, et al. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States, 339 Md. 596, 614 , 664 A.2d 862 (1995). 2004Comm’r of the State of Maryland, et al. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States, 339 Md. 596, 614 , 664 A.2d 862 (1995). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Riddlemoser
green
2 sentences1997In Lloyd, the Court of Appeals articulat *524 ed the appropriate standard for determining whether an issue otherwise moot may be considered: “[0]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions ____ [I]f the public interest clearly will be hurt if the question is not immediately decided, if recurrence will involve a relationship between government and its citizens, or a duty of government, and upon any recurre 1997In Lloyd, the Court of Appeals articulat *524 ed the appropriate standard for determining whether an issue otherwise moot may be considered: “[0]nly where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest, will there be justified a departure from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions ____ [I]f the public interest clearly will be hurt if the question is not immediately decided, if recurrence will involve a relationship between government and its citizens, or a duty of government, and upon any recurre | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Beeman v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
green
2 sentences1997Applying the Lloyd standard, we conclude that we are justified in addressing the issues before us, because “the forced administration of medication clearly concerns ‘a relationship between the government and its citizens.’ ” Beeman v. Dep't of Health, 105 Md.App. 147, 158 , 658 A.2d 1172 (1995) (hereinafter referred to as “Beeman I”). 1997Applying the Lloyd standard, we conclude that we are justified in addressing the issues before us, because “the forced administration of medication clearly concerns ‘a relationship between the government and its citizens.’ ” Beeman v. Dep't of Health, 105 Md.App. 147, 158 , 658 A.2d 1172 (1995) (hereinafter referred to as “Beeman I”). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Peterson
green
1 sentence1995In Peterson , this Court held that it would depart from its general rule in not addressing the merits of a moot question “where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hamilton v. McAuliffe green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| District 1199E, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees v. Johns Hopkins Hospital green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Board of Education v. Montgomery County green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| State Board of Public Welfare v. Myers green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Alfred Avery, Jr., a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, (Mrs.) Alfred Avery v. Wichita Falls Independent School District green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Axilrod v. Minnesota green | 1 | 1961–1961 |