5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sims v. Georgiagreen2 sentences1995See Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404 , 88 S.Ct. 523 , 19 L.Ed.2d 634 (1967). 1995See Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404 , 88 S.Ct. 523 , 19 L.Ed.2d 634 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Figinski v. Modrakgreen2 sentences1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. 1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. | 1 | 1 |
Rosenthal v. Mahongreen2 sentences1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. 1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. | 1 | 1 |
Bowie v. Fordgreen2 sentences1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. 1977Since no one will be permitted to benefit by his own fraudulent action, see Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 119 , 304 A. 2d 803, 808-09 (1973); Rosenthal v. Mahon, 65 Md. 418, 422 , 5 A. 246, 248 (1886); cf. Figinski v. Modrak, 151 Md. 140, 146 , 134 A. 130, 132 (1926), if Kelso is able to show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to Kelso’s detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayor of Baltimore v. Kelso Corp.
green
2 sentences2016Thus, in Kelso Corp., id. at 519, 380 A.2d at 219 , we held that, if the property owner could “show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to [the owner’s] detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device.” In any event, in my view, the distinction between the purposes of condemnation and routine property assessment renders Hance and similar condemnation cases inapplicable. 2016Thus, in Kelso Corp., id. at 519 , 380 A.2d at 219 , we held that, if the property owner could “show that the City through fraud manipulated the date of valuation to [the owner’s] detriment, the court can remedy the injustice by ignoring the statutory date and allowing the jury to consider such factors as will allow the property owner to receive just compensation free of any effect of the fraudulent device.” In any event, in my view, the distinction between the purposes of condemnation and routine property assessment renders Hance and similar condemnation cases inapplicable. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
University of Maryland Medical System Corp. v. Malory
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 333 , 795 A.2d 107 . 2009Id. at 333 , 795 A.2d 107 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Foley v. Press Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences1962In the New York Tribune case, at p. 60, it is said: “The requirements of a defense of fair comment have been set forth in Foley v. Press Publishing Co., 226 App. Div. 535 , 235 N. Y. 1962Co., 235 N.Y.S. 340, 351-2 , on which they relied, were the substantial basis for the action of Judge Menchine in forbidding the publisher in opening statement and in testimony to avail itself of, and the jury to consider in bar of the action, the activities and conduct of Kirby not specified or referred to in the editorial, and we find that they and the other authorities cited justify his rulings under the facts here. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.