Cecil B. Sanner & Mary W. Sanner v. The Trs. of the Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hosp., 398 F.2d 226 (4th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Cecil B. Sanner & Mary W. Sanner v. The Trs. of the Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hosp., 398 F.2d 226 (4th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garnett v. State (md, 1993-11-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Garnett v. State
Md. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Model Penal Code, § 213.6, Comment at 416. [20] Article 20 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which has been held to be in pari materia with the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, see Sanner v. Trustees of Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hosp., 278 F. Supp. 138 (D.Md.), aff'd, 398 F.2d 226 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 982 , 89 S.Ct. 453 , 21 L.Ed.2d 443 (1968), rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 1112 , 89 S.Ct. 853 , 21 L.Ed.2d 813 (1969) (citations omitted); Home Utilities Co., Inc. v. Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., 209 Md. 610 , 122 A.2d 109 (1955); Goldsmith v. Mead Johnson & Co., 176…
cited Cited "see" Lovrinoff v. Helms Express, Inc.
W.D. Pa. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanner v. Trustees of Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital, 278 F.Supp. 138 (D.Md.1968), aff’d 398 F.2d 226 , cert. denied 393 U.S. 982 , 89 S.Ct. 453 , 21 L.Ed.2d 443 (1968).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Palotai v. University of Maryland
4th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Department of Transp., Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 474 A.2d 191 (Md.1984); see also Sanner v. Trustees of Shippard and Enoch Pratt Hosp., 278 F.Supp. 138, 141 (D.Md.), aff'd, 398 F.2d 226 (4th Cir.1968) ("[I]n construing [Articles 19, 20, and 23 (now 24) ] the Maryland court has held that the decisions of the Supreme Court are practically direct authority.").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cecil B. SANNER and Mary W. Sanner, Appellants,
v.
the TRUSTEES OF the SHEPPARD AND ENOCH PRATT HOSPITAL, Appellee
12207.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 9, 1968.
398 F.2d 226
D. Robert Cervera, Washington, D. C., (Joseph I. Huesman, Baltimore, Md., on the brief) for appellants., Norman P. Ramsey, Baltimore, Md., (James D. Peacock and Cleaveland D. Miller; and Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on the brief) for appel-lee.
Boreman, Bryan, Craven, Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Except for an important statutory relaxation [1] in 1966, Maryland judicially adheres to the so called doctrine of charitable immunity. Ordinarily such a matter is one of state law. Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We have carefully considered plaintiff’s interesting contention that the state of Maryland may not constitutionally cling to this judge-made, and increasingly questioned, doctrine. We reject the contention and affirm the granting of summary judgment in favor of the charitable institution, D.C., 278 F.Supp. 138.

Affirmed.

1

. Maryland Code Annotated Art. 43 §, 556A (Supp.1966).