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.
16 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1881–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Board of Election Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2021Mr. Fludd’s argument misses the mark because laches bars “the right to assert a claim after the passage of time[.]” Parker, 230 Md. at 130 (emphasis added). 2021Mr. Fludd’s argument misses the mark because laches bars “the right to assert a claim after the passage of time[.]” Parker, 230 Md. at 130 (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
Blocher v. Harlowgreen2 sentences2025For example, in Blocher v. Harlow, 268 Md. 571, 581 (1973), we observed that “[t]here is a substantial body of law to the effect that where a limitation period is stipulated in a statute creating a cause of action it is not to be considered as an ordinary statute of limitations, but is to be considered as a limitation upon the right as well as the remedy[.]” 26 could be asserted. 14 Id. at 298. 2025For example, in Blocher v. Harlow, 268 Md. 571, 581 (1973), we observed that “[t]here is a substantial body of law to the effect that where a limitation period is stipulated in a statute creating a cause of action it is not to be considered as an ordinary statute of limitations, but is to be considered as a limitation upon the right as well as the remedy[.]” 26 could be asserted. 14 Id. at 298. | 3 | 3 |
Buxton v. Buxtongreen2 sentences2007We held that, ‘[i]n a purely equitable action, a lapse of time shorter than the period of limitations may be sufficient to invoke the doctrine; and, where the delay is of less duration than the statute of limitations, the defense of laches must include an unjustifiable delay and some amount of prejudice to the defendant.’ What amounts to “prejudice,” such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but it is generally held to be any thing that places him in a less favorable position.’ Id. 2005We held that, ‘[i]n a purely equitable action, a lapse of time shorter than the period of limitations may be sufficient to invoke the doctrine; and, where the delay is of less duration than the statute of limitations, the defense of laches must include an unjustifiable delay and some amount of prejudice to the defendant.’ ‘What amounts to “prejudice,” such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances *670 of each case, but it is generally held to be any thing that places him in a less favorable position.’ Id. | 1 | 2 |
Bacon & Associates, Inc. v. Rolly Tasker Sails (Thailand) Co.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Morton v. Schlotzhauer, 449 Md. 217, 242 (2016) (“One is a ‘real party in interest’ with respect to a claim if that person has the right to assert the claim.”); Bacon & Assocs., Inc. v. Rolly Tasker Sails (Thailand) Co., 154 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Morton v. Schlotzhauergreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Morton v. Schlotzhauer, 449 Md. 217, 242 (2016) (“One is a ‘real party in interest’ with respect to a claim if that person has the right to assert the claim.”); Bacon & Assocs., Inc. v. Rolly Tasker Sails (Thailand) Co., 154 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Wormwood v. Batching Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2015See Wormwood, 124 Md.App. at 701 , 723 A.2d 568 (inferring from comments by court and arguments made by appellee that dismissal and denial of reconsideration rested on resolution of legal question). 2015See Wormwood, 124 Md.App. at 701 , 723 A.2d 568 (inferring from comments by court and arguments made by appellee that dismissal and denial of reconsideration rested on resolution of legal question). | 1 | 1 |
Crystal v. West & Callahan, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Crystal, 328 Md. at 340 , 614 A.2d at 571 ("Implying a reasonable time ... avoid[s] the injustices and potential absurdity of a perpetual right to cancel."); D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1990) (observing that failing to imply a reasonable time limit would "produce[] an absurd and unjust result."); Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 ("What amounts to `prejudice,' such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case[.]"). 2012See Crystal, 328 Md. at 340 , 614 A.2d at 571 ("Implying a reasonable time ... avoid[s] the injustices and potential absurdity of a perpetual right to cancel."); D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1990) (observing that failing to imply a reasonable time limit would "produce[] an absurd and unjust result."); Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 ("What amounts to `prejudice,' such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case[.]"). | 1 | 1 |
D & Y, INC. v. Winstongreen2 sentences2012See Crystal, 328 Md. at 340 , 614 A.2d at 571 ("Implying a reasonable time ... avoid[s] the injustices and potential absurdity of a perpetual right to cancel."); D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1990) (observing that failing to imply a reasonable time limit would "produce[] an absurd and unjust result."); Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 ("What amounts to `prejudice,' such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case[.]"). 2012See Crystal, 328 Md. at 340 , 614 A.2d at 571 ("Implying a reasonable time ... avoid[s] the injustices and potential absurdity of a perpetual right to cancel."); D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1990) (observing that failing to imply a reasonable time limit would "produce[] an absurd and unjust result."); Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 ("What amounts to `prejudice,' such as will bar the right to assert a claim after the passage of time, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case[.]"). | 1 | 1 |
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2009In Alden, 527 U.S. at 735, 754 , 119 S.Ct. at 2257, 2266 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 666, 678 , while recognizing that the Eleventh Amendment served previously to limit only the Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts, the United States Supreme Court pointed out that states have the right to assert the defense of sovereign immunity in state court proceedings. 2009In Alden, 527 U.S. at 735, 754 , 119 S.Ct. at 2257, 2266 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 666, 678 , while recognizing that the Eleventh Amendment served previously to limit only the Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts, the United States Supreme Court pointed out that states have the right to assert the defense of sovereign immunity in state court proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canterbury v. Federal-Mogul Ignition Co.
green
1 sentence2016E.g., Canterbury, supra. One is a “real party in interest” with respect to a claim if that person has the right to assert the claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pacific Mortgage and Investment Group, Ltd. v. Horn
green
2 sentences2015Group, Ltd. v. Horn, 100 Md.App. 311, 319-21 , 641 A.2d 913 (1994), Horn filed suit at a time when her bankruptcy trustee alone had the right to assert the claim, as did Schlotzhauer in this case. 2015Group, Ltd. v. Horn, 100 Md.App. 311, 319-21 , 641 A.2d 913 (1994), Horn filed suit at a time when her bankruptcy trustee alone had the right to assert the claim, as did Schlotzhauer in this case. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2006Following this protracted discussion of the constitutional right to compulsory process, the majority concludes that petitioner was denied the right to assert a defense, apparently because "the trial court required defendant to make a proffer and then denied him the right to call the witnesses. . . ." Id. at 537-38 , 898 A.2d at 434-35 . 2006Following this protracted discussion of the constitutional right to compulsory process, the majority concludes that petitioner was denied the right to assert a defense, apparently because "the trial court required defendant to make a proffer and then denied him the right to call the witnesses. . . ." Id. at 537-38 , 898 A.2d at 434-35 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Staley v. Staley
green
2 sentences1975And, since laches implies negligence in not asserting a right within a reasonable time after its discovery, a party must have had knowledge, or the means of knowledge, of the facts which created his cause of action in order for him to be guilty of laches.” A thumbnail definition, coupled with a further explanation of what may be alleged as a change of position for the worse is found in Staley v. Staley, 251 Md. 701 , 248 A. 2d 655 (1968), where the Court said, at 703: “The doctrine of laches is an application of the general principles of estoppel, and consists of two elements — negligence or l 1975And, since laches implies negligence in not asserting a right within a reasonable time after its discovery, a party must have had knowledge, or the means of knowledge, of the facts which created his cause of action in order for him to be guilty of laches.” A thumbnail definition, coupled with a further explanation of what may be alleged as a change of position for the worse is found in Staley v. Staley, 251 Md. 701 , 248 A. 2d 655 (1968), where the Court said, at 703: “The doctrine of laches is an application of the general principles of estoppel, and consists of two elements — negligence or l | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Zeigler v. King
neutral
1 sentence1881King, 9 Md., 330 , it is their duty to take possession of the property, and under the orders of the-Court, to sell the whole fee simple estate, legal and equitable, leaving to Gable & Beacham the right to assert their claim upon the proceeds of sale. ■ But in this view we do not concur. | 1 | 1881–1881 |
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.