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.
23 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Rule 4-253(c) is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 14 and both standards are “merely a restatement of the test applied at common law.” McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 608 , 375 A.2d 551, 554 (1977); see also Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155 , 165–66, 167 A. 60, 64 (1933). 2020Rule 4-253(c) is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 14 and both standards are “merely a restatement of the test applied at common law.” McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 608 , 375 A.2d 551, 554 (1977); see also Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155 , 165–66, 167 A. 60, 64 (1933). | 2 | 3 |
Optic Graphics, Inc. v. Ageegreen2 sentences2023In Optic Graphics, Inc. v. Agee, this Court explained that, even after 35 the adoption of MUTSA, the Restatement factors “still provide helpful guidance to determine whether the information in a given case constitutes ‘trade secrets’ within the definition of the statute[,]” because that definition “clearly ‘is based on the Restatement comment[.]’” 87 Md. 2023In Optic Graphics, Inc. v. Agee, this Court explained that, even after 35 the adoption of MUTSA, the Restatement factors “still provide helpful guidance to determine whether the information in a given case constitutes ‘trade secrets’ within the definition of the statute[,]” because that definition “clearly ‘is based on the Restatement comment[.]’” 87 Md. | 1 | 2 |
McKnight v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Rule 4-253(c) is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 14 and both standards are “merely a restatement of the test applied at common law.” McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 608 , 375 A.2d 551, 554 (1977); see also Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155 , 165–66, 167 A. 60, 64 (1933). 2020Rule 4-253(c) is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“FRCP”) 14 and both standards are “merely a restatement of the test applied at common law.” McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 608 , 375 A.2d 551, 554 (1977); see also Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155 , 165–66, 167 A. 60, 64 (1933). | 1 | 2 |
Cadena v. Chicago Fireworks Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2016Co., the Illinois intermediate appellate court stated that only Restatement factors (a), which focuses on the existence of a high degree of risk of some harm, and (b), which concerns the likelihood that the harm that results will be great, weighed in favor of strict liability. 297 Ill.App.3d 945 , 232 Ill.Dec. 60 , 697 N.E.2d 802, 814 (1998) overruled on other grounds by Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill.2d 205 , 351 Ill.Dec. 135 , 950 N.E.2d 631 (2011). 2016Co., the Illinois intermediate appellate court stated that only Restatement factors (a), which focuses on the existence of a high degree of risk of some harm, and (b), which concerns the likelihood that the harm that results will be great, weighed in favor of strict liability. 297 Ill.App.3d 945 , 232 Ill.Dec. 60 , 697 N.E.2d 802, 814 (1998) overruled on other grounds by Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill.2d 205 , 351 Ill.Dec. 135 , 950 N.E.2d 631 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Remsburg v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2006See Remsburg, 376 Md. at 593 , 831 A.2d 18 . 2006See Remsburg, 376 Md. at 593 , 831 A.2d 18 . | 1 | 1 |
Bowers v. Viatorgreen2 sentences2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . 2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Kellygreen2 sentences2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . 2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bellgreen1 sentence1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McNallygreen1 sentence1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). | 1 | 1 |
Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexandergreen2 sentences1991See Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander, 147 Wis.2d 842 , 434 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1989). 1991See Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander, 147 Wis.2d 842 , 434 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Johns v. Marshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sampsell v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canillas v. Joseph H. Carter, Inc.
green
2 sentences1969Carter, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), 280 F. Supp. 48 , of which we said this: “Judge Bryan in discussing the three rules as to joint tortfeasors—the common law rule that a release to one releases all others, the Restatement rule that a release to one releases all unless there is a reservation of right and the Uniform rule that the release of one does not release others liable unless the release so provides—, said of the Panichella release: ‘There, the release * * * expressly provided for the discharge of all other persons, firms or corporations from liability, and thus was a bar under any of the three rul 1969Carter, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), 280 F. Supp. 48 , of which we said this: “Judge Bryan in discussing the three rules as to joint tortfeasors—the common law rule that a release to one releases all others, the Restatement rule that a release to one releases all unless there is a reservation of right and the Uniform rule that the release of one does not release others liable unless the release so provides—, said of the Panichella release: ‘There, the release * * * expressly provided for the discharge of all other persons, firms or corporations from liability, and thus was a bar under any of the three rul | 2 | 1969–1969 |
Ries v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2016Co., the Illinois intermediate appellate court stated that only Restatement factors (a), which focuses on the existence of a high degree of risk of some harm, and (b), which concerns the likelihood that the harm that results will be great, weighed in favor of strict liability. 297 Ill.App.3d 945 , 232 Ill.Dec. 60 , 697 N.E.2d 802, 814 (1998) overruled on other grounds by Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill.2d 205 , 351 Ill.Dec. 135 , 950 N.E.2d 631 (2011). 2016Co., the Illinois intermediate appellate court stated that only Restatement factors (a), which focuses on the existence of a high degree of risk of some harm, and (b), which concerns the likelihood that the harm that results will be great, weighed in favor of strict liability. 297 Ill.App.3d 945 , 232 Ill.Dec. 60 , 697 N.E.2d 802, 814 (1998) overruled on other grounds by Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill.2d 205 , 351 Ill.Dec. 135 , 950 N.E.2d 631 (2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ries v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2016Co., the Illinois intermediate appellate court stated that only Restatement factors (a), which focuses on the existence of a high degree of risk of some harm, and (b), which concerns the likelihood that the harm that results will be great, weighed in favor of strict liability. 297 Ill.App.3d 945 , 232 Ill.Dec. 60 , 697 N.E.2d 802, 814 (1998) overruled on other grounds by Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill.2d 205 , 351 Ill.Dec. 135 , 950 N.E.2d 631 (2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Luppino v. Gray
green
2 sentences2015On appeal, we agreed with the intermediate appellate court that the jury demand should have been struck because the surviving count in the amended complaint was “merely the restatement of a claim for fraud already set forth in two other counts of the complaint; it did not add a new substantive issue.” Id. at 198 , 647 A.2d at 431 . 2015On appeal, we agreed with the intermediate appellate court that the jury demand should have been struck because the surviving count in the amended complaint was “merely the restatement of a claim for fraud already set forth in two other counts of the complaint; it did not add a new substantive issue.” Id. at 198 , 647 A.2d at 431 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stalter v. State
green
2 sentences2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . 2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stalter v. State
green
2 sentences2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . 2006See Hayes v. Kelly, 625 So.2d 628 (La.App.1993), cert. denied, 625 So.2d 628 (La.1994), and cert. denied, 633 So.2d 171 (La.1994); Stalter v. Washington, supra, 151 Wash.2d 148 , 86 P.3d 1159 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Weems v. Nanticoke Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 552, 378 A.2d 190 . 1999Id. at 552, 378 A.2d 190 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McElroy v. United States
green
2 sentences1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). 1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pointer v. United States
green
2 sentences1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). 1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wanzer v. State
green
2 sentences1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). 1994See Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-166 , 167 A. 60 (1933); Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608 , 97 A.2d 914 (1953); State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 563-564 (1881); State v. Bell, 27 Md. 675, 678 (1867); McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81 , 17 S.Ct. 31, 32-33 , 41 L.Ed. 355 (1896); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 403 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 412-13 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson
green
2 sentences1994The Restatement standard was adopted in Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson, 335 Md. 661, 666 , 645 A.2d 1147 (1994). 1994The Restatement standard was adopted in Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson, 335 Md. 661, 666 , 645 A.2d 1147 (1994). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ross v. Ponemon
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Neustadt v. Pearce
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Atchison v. City of Englewood
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Smerchek v. Hamilton green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Estate of Johnson v. Carr
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Atchison v. City of Englewood green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Martin v. Prairie Rod & Gun Club green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peele v. Wilson County Board of Education
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peele v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Watergate Corporation v. Reagan green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peele v. WILSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUCATION
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peele v. WILSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Smith v. VanVoorhis
green
2 sentences1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( 1985Estate of Johnson v. Carr, 286 Ark. 369 , 691 S.W.2d 161 (1985); Watergate Corporation v. Reagan, 321 So.2d 133 (Fla.1975); Martin v. Prairie Rod and Gun Club, 39 Ill.App.3d 33 , 348 N.E.2d 306 (1976); Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970) aff'd, 30 Colo.App. 207 , 492 P.2d 885 (1972); Smerchek v. Hamilton, 4 Kan.App.2d 346, 606 P.2d 491 (1980); Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (1970); Peele v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 56 N.C.App. 555 , 289 S.E.2d 890 , cert. denied, 306 N.C. 386 , 294 S.E.2d 210 (1982); Smith v. *702 VanVoorhis, 296 S.E.2d 851 ( | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Wilson v. Waters green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Cox v. Forrest green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Marlboro Shirt Co. v. American District Telegraph Co. green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Superior Construction Co. v. Elmo green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Hodges v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Oxford Commercial Corp. v. Landau green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Watson v. State green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Sherrill v. State green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Polansky v. State green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Mazziotte v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Robinson v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Ballenger v. McMillan green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.