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 1966–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jagdish Rai Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Servicegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. at 2500 ("Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect.”); Chadha v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 634 F.2d 408, 425 (9th Cir.1980), aff'd sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Forest City Residential Management, Inc. v. Beasleygreen1 sentence2016Ass’n v. Beasley, 71 F.Supp.3d 715, 732 (E.D.Mich.2014) (“[S]tate courts have jurisdiction to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a landlord may evict a tenant for violation of lease provisions.”) 15 . | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. at 2500 ("Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect.”); Chadha v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 634 F.2d 408, 425 (9th Cir.1980), aff'd sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cane v. EZ Rentals
green
2 sentences2020In Cane, 450 Md. at 604-05 , 149 A.3d at 653 , as to the process under the rent escrow statute, we summarized: The rent escrow statute creates both an affirmative cause of action for a tenant and a defense to certain actions brought by a landlord. 2020In Cane, 450 Md. at 604-05 , 149 A.3d at 653 , as to the process under the rent escrow statute, we summarized: The rent escrow statute creates both an affirmative cause of action for a tenant and a defense to certain actions brought by a landlord. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Legg v. Castruccio
green
2 sentences2009Legg v. Castruccio, 100 Md.App. 748, 778-82 , 642 A.2d 906 (1994)(discussing Stevan v. Brown, 54 Md.App. 235, 247-48 , 458 A.2d 466 (1983), in turn discussing Charles E. 2009Legg v. Castruccio, 100 Md.App. 748, 778-82 , 642 A.2d 906 (1994)(discussing Stevan v. Brown, 54 Md.App. 235, 247-48 , 458 A.2d 466 (1983), in turn discussing Charles E. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Stevan v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009Legg v. Castruccio, 100 Md.App. 748, 778-82 , 642 A.2d 906 (1994)(discussing Stevan v. Brown, 54 Md.App. 235, 247-48 , 458 A.2d 466 (1983), in turn discussing Charles E. 2009Legg v. Castruccio, 100 Md.App. 748, 778-82 , 642 A.2d 906 (1994)(discussing Stevan v. Brown, 54 Md.App. 235, 247-48 , 458 A.2d 466 (1983), in turn discussing Charles E. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Prince George's County v. Blue Bird Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1973We considered this provision in Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird Cab, 263 Md. 655 , 284 A. 2d 203 (1971) in which we sustained the forfeiture in that case, holding, inter alia, that the breach of a provision of a lease between the cab company and the tenant of the cab involved did not result in a possession by the tenant in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of this State so that the provisions of § 297 (a) (4) (b) did not prevent the forfeiture. 1973We considered this provision in Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird Cab, 263 Md. 655 , 284 A. 2d 203 (1971) in which we sustained the forfeiture in that case, holding, inter alia, that the breach of a provision of a lease between the cab company and the tenant of the cab involved did not result in a possession by the tenant in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of this State so that the provisions of § 297 (a) (4) (b) did not prevent the forfeiture. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Messall v. Merlands Club, Inc.
green
2 sentences1966In disposing of the issue created by Tenant’s plea of res judicata he *25 agreed that the parties and the property in Messall v. Merlands Club, 233 Md. 29 (1963) and the parties and the property in the case before him were identical. 1966He noted also this Court’s comment in that case that “the record discloses that substantial repairs had been made in recent years, which, we think, would have been sufficient to support a finding that the lease was not in default for failure to keep the demised premises in good repair.” ( 233 Md. at 38 .) He observed that “no evidence was admitted [at the trial in 233 Md. 29 ] to establish any condition subsequent to the date” of filing of the original bill and the cross-bill. (16 June 1961 and 22 August 1961 respectively.) Judge Carter went on to say: “It, therefore, appears that the material | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.