Skip to main content

Bruce v. State

Citations

  • 616 A.2d 392
  • 328 Md. 594
  • 1992 Md. LEXIS 188

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that \[a] party must clearly proffer his theory to the trial court in order to challenge on appeal the sustaining of objections to those questions\
  • stating that “[a] party must clearly proffer his theory to the trial court in order to challenge on appeal the sustaining of objections to those questions”
  • stating that, historically, non-expert opinions have been excluded from evidence in areas in which only an expert could reach a rational conclusion
  • stating that “lay opinions which are derived from first-hand knowledge, are rationally based, and are helpful to the trier of fact are admissible”
  • articulating that historically non-expert opinions have been excluded from evidence in areas in which only an expert could reach a rational conclusion
  • articulating that historically non-expert opinions have been excluded from evidence in areas in which only an expert could reach a rational conclusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chasanow, Bell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

50 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

53 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.