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.
15 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorman v. Mayor C.C. of Balto.green2 sentences2011Generally, a finding of abandonment requires the “concurrence of two factors, (a) an intention to abandon and (b) some overt act, or some failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the subject matter.” Dorman v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 187 Md. 678, 684 , 51 A.2d 658 (1947). 2011Generally, a finding of abandonment requires the “concurrence of two factors, (a) an intention to abandon and (b) some overt act, or some failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the subject matter.” Dorman v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 187 Md. 678, 684 , 51 A.2d 658 (1947). | 1 | 3 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See id. at 27 , 672 A.2d at 1123 .9 In Washington, 406 Md. at 644-46 , 961 A.2d at 1111-12 , where the defendant was charged with shooting a person outside of a bar and an unknown technician (who had been hired by the owner of the bar) compiled a CD from multiple surveillance cameras and transferred information from the CD to a VHS tape which was given to the police, we held that the trial court erred in admitting the video and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2024See id. at 27 , 672 A.2d at 1123 .9 In Washington, 406 Md. at 644-46 , 961 A.2d at 1111-12 , where the defendant was charged with shooting a person outside of a bar and an unknown technician (who had been hired by the owner of the bar) compiled a CD from multiple surveillance cameras and transferred information from the CD to a VHS tape which was given to the police, we held that the trial court erred in admitting the video and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2 |
Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Colegreen2 sentences2024See id. at 27 , 672 A.2d at 1123 .9 In Washington, 406 Md. at 644-46 , 961 A.2d at 1111-12 , where the defendant was charged with shooting a person outside of a bar and an unknown technician (who had been hired by the owner of the bar) compiled a CD from multiple surveillance cameras and transferred information from the CD to a VHS tape which was given to the police, we held that the trial court erred in admitting the video and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2024See id. at 27 , 672 A.2d at 1123 .9 In Washington, 406 Md. at 644-46 , 961 A.2d at 1111-12 , where the defendant was charged with shooting a person outside of a bar and an unknown technician (who had been hired by the owner of the bar) compiled a CD from multiple surveillance cameras and transferred information from the CD to a VHS tape which was given to the police, we held that the trial court erred in admitting the video and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 763508green1 sentence2023Vega, 174 F.3d at 872 (noting that a state “does not acquire title” but is “merely a custodian,” and “[t]he owner can reclaim his property at any time”); RUUPA, Prefatory Note, at 2 (“The state merely holds possession, indefinitely . . . .”); 1954 Uniform Act, Prefatory Note, at 2 (“The state takes custody and remains the custodian in perpetuity.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Marylandgreen2 sentences2000See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland, 342 Md. 169 , 674 A.2d 534 (1996). 2000See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland, 342 Md. 169 , 674 A.2d 534 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Dobbins's Distillery v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998In its discussion, the Supreme Court contrasted forfeiture proceedings that are of a criminal character with forfeiture proceedings that are of a civil nature: Cases arise, undoubtedly, where the judgment of forfeiture necessarily carries with it, and as part of the sentence, a conviction and judgment against the person for the crime committed; and in that state of the pleadings it is clear that the proceeding is one of a criminal character; but where the information, as in this case, does not involve the personal conviction of the wrong-doer for the offence charged, the remedy of forfeiture c 1998The Court reiterated that the innocence of the owner was no bar to the forfeiture action in the civil in rem proceeding under review: Cases often arise where the property of the owner is forfeited on account of the fraud, neglect, or misconduct of those intrusted with its possession, care, and custody, even when the owner is otherwise without fault. 96 U.S. at 401 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Greer
green
2 sentences1983The court to which any such application has been directed shall establish to its satisfaction that there is no pending and undetermined suit or proceeding which has been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, against the director of finance or treasurer, seeking a return or recovery of the money, currency or cash so held in custody, before the court shall proceed so to order a forfeiture of such money, currency or cash to the State, county or Baltimore City." [4] The majority's conclusion that disposition of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to forfeiture and its simplistic vie 1983The court to which any such application has been directed shall establish to its satisfaction that there is no pending and undetermined suit or proceeding which has been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, against the director of finance or treasurer, seeking a return or recovery of the money, currency or cash so held in custody, before the court shall proceed so to order a forfeiture of such money, currency or cash to the State, county or Baltimore City." [4] The majority's conclusion that disposition of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to forfeiture and its simplistic vie | 2 | 1983–1987 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Hettleman
green
2 sentences2001Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention ...” (quoting City of Baltimore v. Hettleman, 183 Md. 204, 212 , 37 A.2d 335 (1944)). 2001Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention ...” (quoting City of Baltimore v. Hettleman, 183 Md. 204, 212 , 37 A.2d 335 (1944)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman
green
2 sentences2001As the Court of Appeals stated in Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560, 581 , 709 A.2d 749 (1998): “Abandonment depends upon concurrence of two factors, (a) an intention to abandon and (b) some overt act or some failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the subject matter. 2001As the Court of Appeals stated in Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560, 581 , 709 A.2d 749 (1998): “Abandonment depends upon concurrence of two factors, (a) an intention to abandon and (b) some overt act or some failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the subject matter. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Marzocca v. Ferone
green
1 sentence1996In Marzocca v. Ferone , 461 A.2d 1133 (N.J. 1983), the owner of a standard bred race horse, stabled and racing at Freehold Raceway in New Jersey, was requested by the Freehold racing association not to ship his horse to Yonkers Raceway, in New York, due to the shortage of horses at Freehold. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Steuart Petroleum Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Director of Fin., Pr. Geo's Co. v. Cole
green
2 sentences1987Id. at 618 , 465 A.2d 450 ; State v. Greer, 263 Md. 692, 694 , 284 A.2d 233 (1971). 1987Id. at 618 , 465 A.2d 450 ; State v. Greer, 263 Md. 692, 694 , 284 A.2d 233 (1971). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Canada's Tavern, Inc. v. Town of Glen Echo
green
2 sentences1986Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention.” To the same effect, see Merryman v. Bremmer, 250 Md. 1 , 241 A.2d 558 (1968); Canada’s Tavern v. Glen Echo, 260 Md. 206 , 271 A.2d 664 (1970). 1986Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention.” To the same effect, see Merryman v. Bremmer, 250 Md. 1 , 241 A.2d 558 (1968); Canada’s Tavern v. Glen Echo, 260 Md. 206 , 271 A.2d 664 (1970). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Merryman v. Bremmer
green
2 sentences1986Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention.” To the same effect, see Merryman v. Bremmer, 250 Md. 1 , 241 A.2d 558 (1968); Canada’s Tavern v. Glen Echo, 260 Md. 206 , 271 A.2d 664 (1970). 1986Time is not an essential element, but may be evidence of intention to abandon and may be considered in connection with acts manifesting such an intention.” To the same effect, see Merryman v. Bremmer, 250 Md. 1 , 241 A.2d 558 (1968); Canada’s Tavern v. Glen Echo, 260 Md. 206 , 271 A.2d 664 (1970). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Prince George's County v. Blue Bird Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1983The court to which any such application has been directed shall establish to its satisfaction that there is no pending and undetermined suit or proceeding which has been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, against the director of finance or treasurer, seeking a return or recovery of the money, currency or cash so held in custody, before the court shall proceed so to order a forfeiture of such money, currency or cash to the State, county or Baltimore City." [4] The majority's conclusion that disposition of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to forfeiture and its simplistic vie 1983The court to which any such application has been directed shall establish to its satisfaction that there is no pending and undetermined suit or proceeding which has been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, against the director of finance or treasurer, seeking a return or recovery of the money, currency or cash so held in custody, before the court shall proceed so to order a forfeiture of such money, currency or cash to the State, county or Baltimore City." [4] The majority's conclusion that disposition of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to forfeiture and its simplistic vie | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Felder v. Butler
green
1 sentence1982Felder and Hatfíeld specifically reject the concept expounded in other jurisdictions that a tavern owner may be liable to "a party injured as a result of negligent acts of a patron of the tavern to whom alcoholic beverages were sold while the patron was under the influence of intoxicating liquors.” 292 Md. at 178 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Steen v. First Nat. Bank
green
2 sentences1975Bank, 298 F. 36 (8th Cir.1924), where the court said: "The owner of the privilege of preventing the disclosure of confidential communications cannot, after testifying to or about them, or to or about any substantial part of them, without claiming his privilege, or objecting to testify on the ground of his privilege, invoke that privilege to prevent other parties to the communications from testifying to them. 1975Bank, 298 F. 36 (8th Cir. 1924), where the court said: “The owner of the privilege of preventing the disclosure of confidential communications cannot, after testifying to or about them, or to or about any substantial part of them, without claiming his privilege, or objecting to testify on the ground of his privilege, invoke that privilege to prevent other parties to the communications from testifying to them. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.