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 1993–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Respondents argue that Lee v. State, 69 Md.App. 302, 305-07, 517 A.2d 774, 775-76 (1986), aff'd, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), supports their argument that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. 2013Respondents argue that Lee v. State, 69 Md.App. 302, 305-07, 517 A.2d 774, 775-76 (1986), aff'd, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), supports their argument that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Konitsgreen2 sentences2011See Carroll, 400 Md. at 178 , 929 A.2d at 26 (“[T]he existing legislative history [makes clear] that the General Assembly intended the original [HCMCA] to screen—and to first substitute the arbitration process as to malpractice claims—prior to the filing of lawsuits.”). 22 As stated by the Maryland Association for Justice, which filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the present case, another purpose of the HCMCA is to balance “the preservation of rights of those injured through malpractice with the rights of those alleged to have committed the malpractice.” By dismissing a claim or action without pr 2011See Carroll, 400 Md. at 178 , 929 A.2d at 26 (“[T]he existing legislative history [makes clear] that the General Assembly intended the original [HCMCA] to screen—and to first substitute the arbitration process as to malpractice claims—prior to the filing of lawsuits.”). 22 As stated by the Maryland Association for Justice, which filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the present case, another purpose of the HCMCA is to balance “the preservation of rights of those injured through malpractice with the rights of those alleged to have committed the malpractice.” By dismissing a claim or action without pr | 1 | 1 |
P.G. v. State, Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Family & Youth Servicesgreen1 sentence2007It points to several cases from foreign jurisdictions that it argues support the proposition that "[cjourts have recognized that the special relationships between government entities and children under their custody in the child welfare system gives rise to a duty to protect.” P.G. v. State, 4 P.3d 326, 331-332 (Alaska 2000); Ronald S. v. County of San Diego, 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 895-899 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1993); Mark G. v. Sabol, 677 N.Y.S.2d 292, 301 , 247 A.D.2d 15, 30-31 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Mark G. v. Sabolgreen2 sentences2007It points to several cases from foreign jurisdictions that it argues support the proposition that "[cjourts have recognized that the special relationships between government entities and children under their custody in the child welfare system gives rise to a duty to protect.” P.G. v. State, 4 P.3d 326, 331-332 (Alaska 2000); Ronald S. v. County of San Diego, 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 895-899 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1993); Mark G. v. Sabol, 677 N.Y.S.2d 292, 301 , 247 A.D.2d 15, 30-31 (1998). 2007It points to several cases from foreign jurisdictions that it argues support the proposition that "[cjourts have recognized that the special relationships between government entities and children under their custody in the child welfare system gives rise to a duty to protect.” P.G. v. State, 4 P.3d 326, 331-332 (Alaska 2000); Ronald S. v. County of San Diego, 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 895-899 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1993); Mark G. v. Sabol, 677 N.Y.S.2d 292, 301 , 247 A.D.2d 15, 30-31 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobachgreen2 sentences2007As we stated in Koons Ford v. Lobach, 398 Md. 38, 62-63 , 919 A.2d 722, 737 (2007): If [the Legislature] intended otherwise, then it certainly had, and still has, the ability to say so. 2007As we stated in Koons Ford v. Lobach, 398 Md. 38, 62-63 , 919 A.2d 722, 737 (2007): If [the Legislature] intended otherwise, then it certainly had, and still has, the ability to say so. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2013Respondents argue that Lee v. State, 69 Md.App. 302, 305-07, 517 A.2d 774, 775-76 (1986), aff'd, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), supports their argument that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. 2013Respondents argue that Lee v. State, 69 Md.App. 302, 305-07, 517 A.2d 774, 775-76 (1986), aff'd, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), supports their argument that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ronald S. v. County of San Diego
green
2 sentences2007It points to several cases from foreign jurisdictions that it argues support the proposition that "[cjourts have recognized that the special relationships between government entities and children under their custody in the child welfare system gives rise to a duty to protect.” P.G. v. State, 4 P.3d 326, 331-332 (Alaska 2000); Ronald S. v. County of San Diego, 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 895-899 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1993); Mark G. v. Sabol, 677 N.Y.S.2d 292, 301 , 247 A.D.2d 15, 30-31 (1998). 2007It points to several cases from foreign jurisdictions that it argues support the proposition that "[cjourts have recognized that the special relationships between government entities and children under their custody in the child welfare system gives rise to a duty to protect.” P.G. v. State, 4 P.3d 326, 331-332 (Alaska 2000); Ronald S. v. County of San Diego, 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 895-899 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1993); Mark G. v. Sabol, 677 N.Y.S.2d 292, 301 , 247 A.D.2d 15, 30-31 (1998). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pinter v. Dahl
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 651 n. 27, 108 S.Ct. at 2081 n. 27. 1993Id. at 651 n. 27, 108 S.Ct. at 2081 n. 27. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.