landlord motion (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

landlord motion in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2006 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Eidelman v. Walker & Dunlop, Inc.green
md · 1972 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980It was held "as a matter of law, that the offer of surrender by the Clarkes was accepted by the landlord, Millison, at the time the C.E.L., Inc. lease was entered into.” The trial court reasoned that the reletting by Landlord, for a term longer than that of the lease to Tenants "is inconsistent with the continuing operation of the original lease and is of an unequivocal nature demonstrating that the landlord has accepted the offer of surrender.” This conclusion was strongly influenced by language in Eidelman v. Walker & Dunlop, Inc., 265 Md. 538, 544 , 290 A.2d 780, 784 (1972) and in Wilson v.

1980It was held "as a matter of law, that the offer of surrender by the Clarkes was accepted by the landlord, Millison, at the time the C.E.L., Inc. lease was entered into.” The trial court reasoned that the reletting by Landlord, for a term longer than that of the lease to Tenants "is inconsistent with the continuing operation of the original lease and is of an unequivocal nature demonstrating that the landlord has accepted the offer of surrender.” This conclusion was strongly influenced by language in Eidelman v. Walker & Dunlop, Inc., 265 Md. 538, 544 , 290 A.2d 780, 784 (1972) and in Wilson v.

11
Wilson v. Ruhlgreen
md · 1976 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980It was held "as a matter of law, that the offer of surrender by the Clarkes was accepted by the landlord, Millison, at the time the C.E.L., Inc. lease was entered into.” The trial court reasoned that the reletting by Landlord, for a term longer than that of the lease to Tenants "is inconsistent with the continuing operation of the original lease and is of an unequivocal nature demonstrating that the landlord has accepted the offer of surrender.” This conclusion was strongly influenced by language in Eidelman v. Walker & Dunlop, Inc., 265 Md. 538, 544 , 290 A.2d 780, 784 (1972) and in Wilson v.

1980It was held "as a matter of law, that the offer of surrender by the Clarkes was accepted by the landlord, Millison, at the time the C.E.L., Inc. lease was entered into.” The trial court reasoned that the reletting by Landlord, for a term longer than that of the lease to Tenants "is inconsistent with the continuing operation of the original lease and is of an unequivocal nature demonstrating that the landlord has accepted the offer of surrender.” This conclusion was strongly influenced by language in Eidelman v. Walker & Dunlop, Inc., 265 Md. 538, 544 , 290 A.2d 780, 784 (1972) and in Wilson v.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Brady v. Brady neutral
md · 1922
2 sentences

2006And if they are independent this rule as stated in Mr. Tiffany’s treatise on the law of landlord and tenant applies: “That is, if a particular stipulation by the landlord, and that by the tenant for the payment of rent are ‘dependent,’ then the non-performance by the landlord is a defense to the claim for rent, while it is otherwise if the stipulations are ‘independent.’ This is merely an application of a general principle applicable to all contracts or instruments containing executory stipulations by both parties.” And it is said in Halsbury’s Laws of England: “Where the lessee is expressly a

2006And if they are independent this rule as stated in Mr. Tiffany’s treatise on the law of landlord and tenant applies: “That is, if a particular stipulation by the landlord, and that by the tenant for the payment of rent are ‘dependent,’ then the non-performance by the landlord is a defense to the claim for rent, while it is otherwise if the stipulations are ‘independent.’ This is merely an application of a general principle applicable to all contracts or instruments containing executory stipulations by both parties.” And it is said in Halsbury’s Laws of England: “Where the lessee is expressly a

12006–2006
Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson green
md · 1994
2 sentences

2003Thus, the petitioners continue, "proof of notice to the landlord of his violation of law should not be part of the plaintiff's burden of proof...." Ibid.

2003Thus, the petitioners continue, “proof of notice to the landlord of his violation of law should not be part of the plaintiffs burden of proof....” Ibid.

12003–2003
Westchester West No. 2 Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County green
md · 1975
2 sentences

1978A landlord challenge to the local law on so-called “substantive due process” grounds was rejected in Westchester West No. 2 Limited Partnership v. Montgomery County, 276 Md. 448 , 348 A. 2d 856 (1975).

1978A landlord challenge to the local law on so-called “substantive due process” grounds was rejected in Westchester West No. 2 Limited Partnership v. Montgomery County, 276 Md. 448 , 348 A. 2d 856 (1975).

11978–1978
Woodland v. Wise green
md · 1910
2 sentences

1935But as to instalments not accrued at that time, the same rule has been applied as in bankruptcy, and the rent covenants are not regarded as accelerated by the receivership.” Glenn, Liquidation, 699; Woodland v. Wise, 112 Md. 35 , 76 A. 502 .

1935But as to instalments not accrued at that time, the same rule has been applied as in bankruptcy, and the rent covenants are not regarded as accelerated by the receivership.” Glenn, Liquidation, 699; Woodland v. Wise, 112 Md. 35 , 76 A. 502 .

11935–1935

Where else courts name it

NY 55 (1890–2026) PA 15 (1868–2025) CA 14 (1899–2025) MA 9 (1915–2022) OH 8 (1955–2025) OR 7 (1987–2025) DC 7 (1977–2020) TX 6 (1881–2026) MD 5 (1935–2006) OK 5 (1915–2019) AR 4 (1910–1997) UT 4 (2014–2019) MO 4 (1906–2019) DE 4 (1958–2017) FL 4 (1959–2024) IL 4 (1931–2023) IA 3 (1996–2017) AL 3 (1860–2018) ID 3 (1978–2005) NC 3 (1884–1987) NJ 3 (1933–2020) LA 3 (1938–1988) WI 3 (1998–2020) NM 2 (1997–2009) NE 2 (1988–2017) MI 2 (1922–2024) GA 2 (1947–1994) WA 2 (1930–2022) AK 2 (2024–2024) CT 2 (1963–1991)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check