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.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1931–1999 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gatewood v. Stategreen2 sentences1986When, as in this case, ‘the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity and expresses a definite and sensible meaning, the courts are not at liberty to insert or delete words with a view toward making the statute express an intention which is different from its plain meaning.’ Gatewood v. State, 244 Md. 609, 617 , 224 A.2d 677, 682 (1966) (citing cases).” 284 Md. at 660-61 , 399 A.2d 250 . 1986When, as in this case, ‘the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity and expresses a definite and sensible meaning, the courts are not at liberty to insert or delete words with a view toward making the statute express an intention which is different from its plain meaning.’ Gatewood v. State, 244 Md. 609, 617 , 224 A.2d 677, 682 (1966) (citing cases).” 284 Md. at 660-61 , 399 A.2d 250 . | 2 | 2 |
Frank v. Baltimore Countygreen2 sentences1999The statute, we held, did not mandate that the pension benefit be entirely supplied by the employer in order to qualify as a set-off, and we pointed out that the addition of such a requirement “would frustrate the legislature’s intention to minimize the burden on the public treasury that would result from providing duplicate benefits to public employees.” Id. at 661 , 399 A.2d at 254 (emphasis added). 1999The statute, we held, did not mandate that the pension benefit be entirely supplied by the employer in order to qualify as a set-off, and we pointed out that the addition of such a requirement “would frustrate the legislature’s intention to minimize the burden on the public treasury that would result from providing duplicate benefits to public employees.” Id. at 661 , 399 A.2d at 254 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rabon v. South Carolina State Highway Department
green
2 sentences1988The special problem engendered by the time requirement is illustrated by Rabon v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 258 S.C. 154 , 187 S.E.2d 652 (1972). 1988The special problem engendered by the time requirement is illustrated by Rabon v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 258 S.C. 154 , 187 S.E.2d 652 (1972). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
White v. Parks
green
2 sentences1931Street v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 147 , 115 A. 27 ; White v. Parks, 154 Md. 195, 202 , 140 A. 70 . 1931Street v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 147 , 115 A. 27 ; White v. Parks, 154 Md. 195, 202 , 140 A. 70 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Streett v. Hodgson
green
2 sentences1931Street v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 147 , 115 A. 27 ; White v. Parks, 154 Md. 195, 202 , 140 A. 70 . 1931Street v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 147 , 115 A. 27 ; White v. Parks, 154 Md. 195, 202 , 140 A. 70 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.