Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1/11/2008

Rush v. State

Citations

939 A.2d 689
403 Md. 68
2008 Md. LEXIS 16

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “the totality of the advisements, both oral and written,” communicated all rights afforded by Miranda
holding that defendant could not raise an alternate theory of suppression because the record was “not adequate to base a decision” on
stating, in relevant part, that whether a suspect in custody is “a repeat offender familiar with the criminal justice system or an individual with a previously clean record does not vary the fact that sufficient Miranda warnings must be given”
“Further, whenever possible, an interpretation should be given to the statutory provisions which does not lead to unreasonable or illogical conse quences.”
“[T]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.”
“[T]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Raker, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Wilner, Cathell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

58 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.