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 1988–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corp.green2 sentences2005Nevertheless, we reversed the award of summary judgment as to the wrongful death claims of the wife and children, holding that “express knowledge of the diagnosis of mesotheli-oma alone was insufficient to satisfy, as a matter of law, the inquiry notice requirement.” Id., 162 Md.App. at 180 , 873 A.2d 463 ; see also id. at 204, 873 A.2d 463 . 2005Nevertheless, we reversed the award of summary judgment as to the wrongful death claims of the wife and children, holding that “express knowledge of the diagnosis of mesotheli-oma alone was insufficient to satisfy, as a matter of law, the inquiry notice requirement.” Id., 162 Md.App. at 180 , 873 A.2d 463 ; see also id. at 204, 873 A.2d 463 . | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Demedisgreen2 sentences2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff 2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Archdiocese of Washingtongreen2 sentences2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff 2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
Russo v. Aschergreen2 sentences2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff 2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correctiongreen1 sentence2000Applying the inquiry notice rule to the facts presented in O’Hara , and in light of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that case, the defendants had the burden of proving that more than three years before filing suit (1) the plaintiffs knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investiga *447 tion would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud, the alleged tort. [Emphasis added.] See also Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tru-Rol Company, Inc. v. Yox
green
2 sentences2005In Tru-Rol Co. Inc. v. Yox, 149 Md.App. 707 , 818 A.2d 283 (2003), we applied the inquiry notice rule in that context. 2005In Tru-Rol Co. Inc. v. Yox, 149 Md.App. 707 , 818 A.2d 283 (2003), we applied the inquiry notice rule in that context. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios
green
2 sentences1998Further, they contend that the inquiry notice rule requires that “ ‘an investigation prompted by notice must lead to discovery of the alleged tort.’ ” Appellants’ Br. at 27 (quoting Pennwalt, 314 Md. at 452 , 550 A.2d 1155 ). 1998Further, they contend that the inquiry notice rule requires that “ ‘an investigation prompted by notice must lead to discovery of the alleged tort.’ ” Appellants’ Br. at 27 (quoting Pennwalt, 314 Md. at 452 , 550 A.2d 1155 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
O'HARA v. Kovens
green
1 sentence1988O’Hara, 805 Md. at 288, 503 A.2d at 1317 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Baysinger v. Schmid Products Co.
green
2 sentences1988Subsequent to O’Hara , operation of the inquiry notice rule was brought into question in Baysinger v. Schmid Products Co., 307 Md. 361, 514 A.2d 1 (1986), a products liability case. 1988Subsequent to O’Hara , operation of the inquiry notice rule was brought into question in Baysinger v. Schmid Products Co., 307 Md. 361, 514 A.2d 1 (1986), a products liability case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.