5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associatesgreen2 sentences2000In Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 18-19 , 376 A.2d 505, 514 (1977), we approved a four-part test, which must be satisfied in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applicable: 1. 2000In Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 18-19 , 376 A.2d 505, 514 (1977), we approved a four-part test, which must be satisfied in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applicable: 1. | 1 | 1 |
Maryland Ex Rel. Gliedman v. Capital Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence1995The Court in Pat Perusse quoted extensively from State of Maryland v. Capital Airlines, Inc., 267 F.Supp. 298, 303-04 (D.Md.1967), including: Four questions must be answered in the affirmative in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applicable.... “[1] Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? [2] Was there a final judgment on the merits? [3] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?” [4] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted given a fai | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pat Perusse Realty Co. v. Lingo
green
2 sentences1995The Court in Pat Perusse quoted extensively from State of Maryland v. Capital Airlines, Inc., 267 F.Supp. 298, 303-04 (D.Md.1967), including: Four questions must be answered in the affirmative in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applicable.... “[1] Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? [2] Was there a final judgment on the merits? [3] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?” [4] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted given a fai 1995The Court in Pat Perusse quoted extensively from State of Maryland v. Capital Airlines, Inc., 267 F.Supp. 298, 303-04 (D.Md.1967), including: Four questions must be answered in the affirmative in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applicable.... “[1] Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? [2] Was there a final judgment on the merits? [3] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?” [4] Was the party against whom the plea is asserted given a fai | 2 | 1977–1995 |
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association
green
2 sentences1971Three of them were formulated by Justice Traynor in Bernhard, supra, [Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal. 2d 807 , 122 P. 2d 892 (1942)] 122 P. 2d at 894 -895 “Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? 1971Three of them were formulated by Justice Traynor in Bernhard, supra, [Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal. 2d 807 , 122 P. 2d 892 (1942)] 122 P. 2d at 894 -895 “Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? | 2 | 1968–1971 |