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 1991–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McClellan v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2005As early as 1855, [the Court of Appeals] ... made it clear that settlement agreements are desirable and should be binding and enforceable-In McClellan v. Kennedy, 8 Md. 230 [, *454 248] (1855), we said: “ ‘If compromises are otherwise unobjectionable they will be binding, and the right will not prevail against the agreement of the parties, for the right must always be on one side or the other, and there would be an end of compromises if they might be overthrown upon any subsequent ascertainment of right contrary thereto.’ The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” Chernick v. Chern 1992In McClellan v. Kennedy, 8 Md. 230 (1855), we said: “ ‘If compromises are otherwise unobjectionable they will be binding, and the right will not prevail against the agreement of the parties, for the right must always be on one side or the other, and there would be an end of compromises if they might be overthrown upon any subsequent ascertainment of right contrary thereto.’ The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” *482 Id. at 248 , quoting 1 Story’s, Commentaries on Equity §§ 131-32. | 2 | 1992–2005 |
Clark v. Elza
green
2 sentences1991“The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of settlement agreements in Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208 , 406 A.2d 922 (1979), where Judge Eldridge, for the Court, stated: Moreover, it is logical to hold that executory accords are enforceable. 1991“The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of settlement agreements in Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208 , 406 A.2d 922 (1979), where Judge Eldridge, for the Court, stated: Moreover, it is logical to hold that executory accords are enforceable. | 2 | 1991–1993 |
Chernick v. Chernick
green
2 sentences2005As early as 1855, [the Court of Appeals] ... made it clear that settlement agreements are desirable and should be binding and enforceable-In McClellan v. Kennedy, 8 Md. 230 [, *454 248] (1855), we said: “ ‘If compromises are otherwise unobjectionable they will be binding, and the right will not prevail against the agreement of the parties, for the right must always be on one side or the other, and there would be an end of compromises if they might be overthrown upon any subsequent ascertainment of right contrary thereto.’ The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” Chernick v. Chern 2005As early as 1855, [the Court of Appeals] ... made it clear that settlement agreements are desirable and should be binding and enforceable-In McClellan v. Kennedy, 8 Md. 230 [, *454 248] (1855), we said: “ ‘If compromises are otherwise unobjectionable they will be binding, and the right will not prevail against the agreement of the parties, for the right must always be on one side or the other, and there would be an end of compromises if they might be overthrown upon any subsequent ascertainment of right contrary thereto.’ The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation.” Chernick v. Chern | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Jones v. Hubbard
green
1 sentence2002There, this Court, quoting 1 Story’s, Commentaries on Equity §§ 131— 32, said: *86 " 'If compromises are otherwise unobjectionable they will be binding, and the right will not prevail against the agreement of the parties, for the right must always be on one side or the other, and there would be an end of compromises if they might be overthrown upon any subsequent ascertainment of right contrary thereto.' The doctrine of compromises rests on this foundation." Id. at 248, 740 A.2d 1004 . 8 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |