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 1902–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mayor of Baltimore v. Chasegreen1 sentence2020See Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 130-32 (2000) (use of the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” clearly and unambiguously indicates that a statute “takes precedence over and prevails” against restrictions imposed by other laws). 26 As a general rule, when there is a conflict between two provisions of law, the later-enacted provision controls. | 1 | 1 |
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.green2 sentences2017Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 358 Md. 83, 101-04 , 747 A.2d 600 (2000) (affidavits related to summary judgment motion should be based on personal knowledge). 2017Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 358 Md. 83, 101-04 , 747 A.2d 600 (2000) (affidavits related to summary judgment motion should be based on personal knowledge). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe, on the demise of Chamberlain v. Owings
neutral
2 sentences1913Chamberlain v. Owings, 30 Md. 447 . 1913In Chamberlain v. Owings, 30 Md. 447 , cited in their brief, the Court said: “When the intention of the testator does not clearly appear from the words used in a clause of a will which is to he construed, then a resort may be had to the introductory clause, if there be one, to explain their meaning, and if, by it is manifested an intention upon the part of the testator to dispose of the whole of his estate, the words in the clause to be construed, which otherwise would he of doubtful meaning, and consequently not sufficient to pass the fee, shall be taken in that sense which -accords with the | 2 | 1902–1913 |
Doyle v. Finance America, LLC
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 377 , 918 A.2d 1266 . 2010Id. at 377 , 918 A.2d 1266 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Beall's Lessee v. Holmes
neutral
1 sentence1913In Beall v. Holmes, 6 H. & J. 205 , the case principally relied on in Chamberlain v. Owings, Chief Judge Buchanaw reviewed many cases in his usual thorough and able manner, but concluded that that introductory clause which was “As touching my worldlv estate wherewith it has pleased God to bless me in this life, I give, devise and dispose of in the following form and manner, vizdid not authorize the Court to hold that the estate *522 there under consideration was in fee and held the devisee took a life interest only. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.