20 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1904–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. State Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Ross, 387 Md. at 668–73 (laches barred an unsuccessful candidate’s challenge to his opponent’s qualifications when he was on notice of the successful candidate’s committee’s failure to file campaign finance reports prior to the election, and waited until three days after the general election to file the action); Liddy, 398 Md. at 250–55 (laches barred a petitioner’s election challenge to a candidate’s qualifications for the Office of Attorney General where the petitioner filed the petition 18 days before the general election, even though the petitioner was on notice of the alleged c 2017Ross, 387 Md. at 671 , 876 A.2d at 705 . | 1 | 3 |
Lamone v. Schlakmangreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Ross, 387 Md. at 668–73 (laches barred an unsuccessful candidate’s challenge to his opponent’s qualifications when he was on notice of the successful candidate’s committee’s failure to file campaign finance reports prior to the election, and waited until three days after the general election to file the action); Liddy, 398 Md. at 250–55 (laches barred a petitioner’s election challenge to a candidate’s qualifications for the Office of Attorney General where the petitioner filed the petition 18 days before the general election, even though the petitioner was on notice of the alleged c 2025See, e.g., Lamone v. Schlakman, 451 Md. 468 , 473–74, 490 (2017) (“Although we conclude that Appellees’ circuit court challenge to the [Baltimore City Board of Elections’ and State Board of Elections’] actions is barred as untimely and foreclosed by the operation of laches, we also conclude, in the alternative, that their entitlement to the relief they sought fails because Appellees cannot succeed on the merits.”). 51 2016 amendment to this very charter provision, which he contends is an example of how the charter amendment should have been drafted. | 1 | 2 |
Liddy v. Lamonegreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Ross, 387 Md. at 668–73 (laches barred an unsuccessful candidate’s challenge to his opponent’s qualifications when he was on notice of the successful candidate’s committee’s failure to file campaign finance reports prior to the election, and waited until three days after the general election to file the action); Liddy, 398 Md. at 250–55 (laches barred a petitioner’s election challenge to a candidate’s qualifications for the Office of Attorney General where the petitioner filed the petition 18 days before the general election, even though the petitioner was on notice of the alleged c 2018In Liddy , 398 Md. at 236 , 919 A.2d at 1278 -79 , this Court held that the doctrine of laches barred a plaintiff's election claim where the plaintiff filed a complaint eighteen days before the 2006 general election, alleging that Douglas F. Gansler, the Democratic Party's nominee for Attorney General, was ineligible because he allegedly had not practiced law in Maryland for at least ten years. | 1 | 2 |
Garfinkel v. Schwartzmangreen2 sentences1981Our most recent holding which applies the election rule as Maryland law is Garfinkel v. Schwartzman, 253 Md. 710 , 254 A.2d 667 (1969), a suit for real estate broker’s commissions in which the undisclosed principal seller and his agent to sell were joined. 1981Our most recent holding which applies the election rule as Maryland law is Garfinkel v. Schwartzman, 253 Md. 710 , 254 A.2d 667 (1969), a suit for real estate broker’s commissions in which the undisclosed principal seller and his agent to sell were joined. | 1 | 2 |
Cook v. Alexandria National Bankgreen2 sentences1979The law is now well settled in this State that the “mere initiation of a suit, prior to it becoming a final judgment, does not constitute an election which would bar either an amended claim from being filed in the same action or a totally different remedy in an independent action.” Cook v. Alexandria Bank, 263 Md. 147, 150 , 282 A.2d 97, 99 (1971). 1979The law is now well settled in this State that the “mere initiation of a suit, prior to it becoming a final judgment, does not constitute an election which would bar either an amended claim from being filed in the same action or a totally different remedy in an independent action.” Cook v. Alexandria Bank, 263 Md. 147, 150 , 282 A.2d 97, 99 (1971). | 1 | 2 |
Washabaugh v. Washabaughgreen2 sentences1987Like the majority opinion, the dicta contained in footnote 6 in Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393, 399 , 404 A.2d 1027 (1979), confuses appellate preservation with the election requirement of Art. 1987Like the majority opinion, the dicta contained in footnote 6 in Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393, 399 , 404 A.2d 1027 (1979), confuses appellate preservation with the election requirement of Art. | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences1987See the discussion in Reyes v. Prince George's County, supra, 281 Md. at 291-298 , 380 A.2d 12 . [6] The lack of appellate jurisdiction in those cases, however, was not rooted in the Constitution itself. [7] Like the majority opinion, the dicta contained in footnote 6 in Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393, 399 , 404 A.2d 1027 (1979), confuses appellate preservation with the election requirement of Art. 1987See the discussion in Reyes v. Prince George's County, supra, 281 Md. at 291-298 , 380 A.2d 12 . [6] The lack of appellate jurisdiction in those cases, however, was not rooted in the Constitution itself. [7] Like the majority opinion, the dicta contained in footnote 6 in Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393, 399 , 404 A.2d 1027 (1979), confuses appellate preservation with the election requirement of Art. | 1 | 1 |
Ore Steamship Corporation v. D/SA/S Hasselgreen1 sentence1981Judge Clarke, writing for Judges Swann and Frank £is well, has called the election rule a "harsh doctrine, resting at most on a rather barren logic____” Ore Steamship Corporation v. D/S A/S Hassel, 137 F.2d 326, 330 (2d Cir. 1943). | 1 | 1 |
Tabloid Lithographers, Inc. v. Israelgreen2 sentences1981The one contract-no windfall rationale for the election rule was well stated in Tabloid Lithographers, Inc. v. Israel, 87 N.J. 1981Super. 358, 365 , 209 A.2d 364, 368-69 (1965) as follows: There is no reasonable basis for giving plaintiff a cause of action against both the agent and the principal when plaintiff contracted for only one. | 1 | 1 |
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.green2 sentences1981But we have demonstrated above that the election rule is not a "clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise ....” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 403 , 90 S. Ct. 1772, 1789 , 26 L. 1981But we have demonstrated above that the election rule is not a "clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise ....” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 403 , 90 S. Ct. 1772, 1789 , 26 L. | 1 | 1 |
Wheaton Lumber Co. v. Metzgreen2 sentences1981This exception was applied as an alternative ground of decision in Wheaton Lumber Co. v. Metz, 229 Md. 78, 82 , 181 A.2d 666, 669 (1962). 1981This exception was applied as an alternative ground of decision in Wheaton Lumber Co. v. Metz, 229 Md. 78, 82 , 181 A.2d 666, 669 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
Hospelhorn v. Poegreen1 sentence1980It is inferable from what the Court said in Hospelhorn, 174 Md. at 259, 261 , that, where both principal and agent have been joined in a single action, the proper time for election is at the end of the case — before any final judgments are entered. 7 The existence of a judgment previously entered on motion presents somewhat of a "wrinkle” in this approach, of course, but not a significant or fatal one, so long as that judgment is not final. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Wardengreen2 sentences1979The former rule had been silent as to the mechanics of the election, and the revised rule went no further with respect to the procedural aspects of the election to be tried by jury or by court than to prescribe that “[s]uch election shall be made by the accused in open court when first called upon to plead after he is represented by counsel of record or has waived counsel.” It spoke in terms of “election” rather than “waiver,” see Miller v. Warden, 16 Md. 1979The former rule had been silent as to the mechanics of the election, and the revised rule went no further with respect to the procedural aspects of the election to be tried by jury or by court than to prescribe that "[s]uch election shall be made by the accused in open court when first called upon to plead after he is represented by counsel of record or has waived counsel." It spoke in terms of "election" rather than "waiver," see Miller v. Warden, 16 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Levin v. Singer
green
2 sentences1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . 1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . | 2 | 1971–1974 |
Perdue v. Brittingham
green
2 sentences1947While they concede that this court held, in the recent case of Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393 , 47 A. 2d 491 , that the institution" of an action at law by the dependents of a deceased employee does not operate as an election, where it is dismissed prior to an award of compensation, they contend that the/ case is distinguishable, and that unless the action at law is discontinued, the doctrine of election should apply. 1947While they concede that this court held, in the recent case of Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393 , 47 A. 2d 491 , that the institution" of an action at law by the dependents of a deceased employee does not operate as an election, where it is dismissed prior to an award of compensation, they contend that the/ case is distinguishable, and that unless the action at law is discontinued, the doctrine of election should apply. | 2 | 1947–1971 |
Ademiluyi v. Md. State Bd. of Elections
green
1 sentence2025See, e.g., Ross, 387 Md. at 668–73 (laches barred an unsuccessful candidate’s challenge to his opponent’s qualifications when he was on notice of the successful candidate’s committee’s failure to file campaign finance reports prior to the election, and waited until three days after the general election to file the action); Liddy, 398 Md. at 250–55 (laches barred a petitioner’s election challenge to a candidate’s qualifications for the Office of Attorney General where the petitioner filed the petition 18 days before the general election, even though the petitioner was on notice of the alleged c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Duffy v. Conaway
green
2 sentences2018In Duffy , the Court of Appeals, sua sponte , invoked the separation of powers doctrine to conclude that a circuit court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an advisory trial in an election challenge. 295 Md. at 254 , 455 A.2d 955 . 2018In Duffy , the Court of Appeals, sua sponte , invoked the separation of powers doctrine to conclude that a circuit court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an advisory trial in an election challenge. 295 Md. at 254 , 455 A.2d 955 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Benjamin F. Bennett Building Co.
green
2 sentences2009If the injured worker seeks compensation from the principal contractor, “the rights and obligations of the parties are identical with those of the parties, [as] if the election had been to claim compensation or to proceed against the subcontractor.” Id. at 164 , 140 A. 52 . 2009If the injured worker seeks compensation from the principal contractor, “the rights and obligations of the parties are identical with those of the parties, [as] if the election had been to claim compensation or to proceed against the subcontractor.” Id. at 164 , 140 A. 52 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
County Council v. Montgomery Ass'n
green
1 sentence1994Ibid. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
The Harrisburg
red
2 sentences1981Ed. 2d 339, 358 (1970) (overruling The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199 , 7 S. Ct. 140 , 30 L. 1981Ed. 2d 339, 358 (1970) (overruling The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199 , 7 S. Ct. 140 , 30 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences1979II In State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11 , 273 A.2d 156 , decided 8 February 1971, this Court observed that it is established that "an accused may elect a court trial, thereby waiving a jury trial" and indicated that the election and waiver must be "knowing." Id. at 12 . [5] Several months later, on 28 June 1971, Rule 741 was amended effective 1 September 1971. 1979II In State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11 , 273 A.2d 156 , decided 8 February 1971, this Court observed that it is established that "an accused may elect a court trial, thereby waiving a jury trial" and indicated that the election and waiver must be "knowing." Id. at 12 . [5] Several months later, on 28 June 1971, Rule 741 was amended effective 1 September 1971. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
John v. International Harvester Co. of America
neutral
1 sentence1976The appellant, to sustain its contention that the filing of the original counterclaim constitutes an election such as to bar the remedy of rescission, relies strongly on the case of Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 1933, *154 237 App. Div. 778 , 263 N. Y. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
City of Baltimore v. Moore
green
2 sentences1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . 1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Preissman v. Harmatz
green
2 sentences1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). 1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Petillo v. Stein
green
2 sentences1974They seem to be groping for, but not quite articulating, the doctrine of election of remedies, “sometimes known as the doctrine of election, ... a species of estoppel.” Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 651 , 42 A. 2d 675 . 1974They seem to be groping for, but not quite articulating, the doctrine of election of remedies, “sometimes known as the doctrine of election, ... a species of estoppel.” Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 651 , 42 A. 2d 675 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Martin v. Carl
green
2 sentences1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). 1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hall v. Barlow Corporation
green
2 sentences1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). 1974Preissman v. Harmatz, *710 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Martin v. Carl, 213 Md. 564 , 132 A. 2d 601 (1957). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Keefauver v. Richardson green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| State Roads Commission v. Smith green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co.
green
2 sentences1971City of Baltimore v. Landay, 258 Md. 568 , 267 A. 2d 156 (1970); Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co., 252 Md. 374 , 249 A. 2d 711 (1969); Keefauver v. Richardson, 233 Md. 545, 551 , 197 A. 2d 438 (1964); Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60-61 , 175 A. 2d 423 (1961); State Roads Comm. v. Smith, 224 Md. 537 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393, 401 , 47 A. 2d 491 (1946). 1971City of Baltimore v. Landay, 258 Md. 568 , 267 A. 2d 156 (1970); Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co., 252 Md. 374 , 249 A. 2d 711 (1969); Keefauver v. Richardson, 233 Md. 545, 551 , 197 A. 2d 438 (1964); Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60-61 , 175 A. 2d 423 (1961); State Roads Comm. v. Smith, 224 Md. 537 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393, 401 , 47 A. 2d 491 (1946). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Landay
green
2 sentences1971City of Baltimore v. Landay, 258 Md. 568 , 267 A. 2d 156 (1970); Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co., 252 Md. 374 , 249 A. 2d 711 (1969); Keefauver v. Richardson, 233 Md. 545, 551 , 197 A. 2d 438 (1964); Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60-61 , 175 A. 2d 423 (1961); State Roads Comm. v. Smith, 224 Md. 537 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393, 401 , 47 A. 2d 491 (1946). 1971City of Baltimore v. Landay, 258 Md. 568 , 267 A. 2d 156 (1970); Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co., 252 Md. 374 , 249 A. 2d 711 (1969); Keefauver v. Richardson, 233 Md. 545, 551 , 197 A. 2d 438 (1964); Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60-61 , 175 A. 2d 423 (1961); State Roads Comm. v. Smith, 224 Md. 537 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393, 401 , 47 A. 2d 491 (1946). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Dutton v. Tawes
green
1 sentence1971Dutton v. Tawes, 225 Md. 484, 493-494 . 1 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Beall v. Schley neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| Tongue's lessee v. Nutwell neutral | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.