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 2012–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel Countygreen2 sentences2013“Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, ‘negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.’” Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270, 293 , 47 A.3d 560 (2012) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). 2013“Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, ‘negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.’” Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270, 293 , 47 A.3d 560 (2012) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). | 2 | 3 |
Pendleton v. Stategreen2 sentences2012We shall hold that the trial court was legally correct in its dismissal, and therefore affirm under the reasoning discussed, infra. DISCUSSION Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, “negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.” Ash burn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1986); accord Pendleton, 398 Md. at 461 , 921 A.2d at 204 (“[W]hen analyzing a negligence action it is customary to begin with whether a legally cognizable duty exists.” (citations omitted)); Bobo, 346 Md 2012We shall hold that the trial court was legally correct in its dismissal, and therefore affirm under the reasoning discussed, infra. DISCUSSION Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, “negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.” Ash burn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1986); accord Pendleton, 398 Md. at 461 , 921 A.2d at 204 (“[W]hen analyzing a negligence action it is customary to begin with whether a legally cognizable duty exists.” (citations omitted)); Bobo, 346 Md | 2 | 3 |
Bobo v. Stategreen2 sentences2012We shall hold that the trial court was legally correct in its dismissal, and therefore affirm under the reasoning discussed, infra. DISCUSSION Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, “negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.” Ash burn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1986); accord Pendleton, 398 Md. at 461 , 921 A.2d at 204 (“[W]hen analyzing a negligence action it is customary to begin with whether a legally cognizable duty exists.” (citations omitted)); Bobo, 346 Md 2012We shall hold that the trial court was legally correct in its dismissal, and therefore affirm under the reasoning discussed, infra. DISCUSSION Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, “negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.” Ash burn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1986); accord Pendleton, 398 Md. at 461 , 921 A.2d at 204 (“[W]hen analyzing a negligence action it is customary to begin with whether a legally cognizable duty exists.” (citations omitted)); Bobo, 346 Md | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pace Ex Rel. Pace v. State
green
2 sentences2015Thus, “[d]uty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence.” Pace v. State, 425 Md. 145, 155 , 38 A.3d 418 (2012). 2015Thus, “[d]uty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence.” Pace v. State, 425 Md. 145, 155 , 38 A.3d 418 (2012). | 3 | 2012–2015 |
Barclay v. Briscoe
green
2 sentences2013“Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, ‘negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.’” Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270, 293 , 47 A.3d 560 (2012) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). 2013“Duty is a foundational element in a claim of negligence because, as we have said, ‘negligence is a breach of a duty owed to one, and absent that duty, there can be no negligence.’” Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270, 293 , 47 A.3d 560 (2012) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |