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.
13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1971–1982 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beahm v. Shortallgreen2 sentences1978Accord, Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321, 341-343 , 368 A. 2d 1005 (1977); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 12 , 320 A. 2d 258 (1974). *12 Quality argues that granting the motion for a directed verdict was error for two reasons. 1978Accord, Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321, 341-343 , 368 A. 2d 1005 (1977); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 12 , 320 A. 2d 258 (1974). *12 Quality argues that granting the motion for a directed verdict was error for two reasons. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buchanan v. Galliher
green
2 sentences1976App. 83 , 272 A. 2d 814 , cert. denied, 261 Md. 722 (1971), when we said, at 87: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the 1974App. 83, 87 , 272 A. 2d 814, 817 , we said: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and *121 inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for th | 5 | 1971–1976 |
Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.
green
2 sentences1982Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 296 , 389 A.2d 887 (1978). 1982Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 296 , 389 A.2d 887 (1978). | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Lauer v. Scott
green
2 sentences1975Lauer v. Scott, 12 Md. 1974Lauer v. Scott, 12 Md. | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Levine v. Rendler
green
2 sentences1978Accord, Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321, 341-343 , 368 A. 2d 1005 (1977); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 12 , 320 A. 2d 258 (1974). *12 Quality argues that granting the motion for a directed verdict was error for two reasons. 1978Accord, Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321, 341-343 , 368 A. 2d 1005 (1977); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 12 , 320 A. 2d 258 (1974). *12 Quality argues that granting the motion for a directed verdict was error for two reasons. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Hicks
green
1 sentence1975We said in Hicks, supra, at 529-530: “We believe that the true interpretation of res ipsa loquitur in Maryland, despite apparent inconsistencies in discussing it, is that espoused by the great majority of American courts. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Newton v. Spence
green
1 sentence1975App. 126 , 316 A. 2d 837 (1974), where at 134, we said: “When called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule on the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to the jury, the trial court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made; and if such evidence and inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the ju | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Armstrong v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence1973App. 83 , we said at page 87: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for *648 a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made * * In Armstrong v. Johnson Motor Lines, 12 Md. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Little v. Duncan
green
1 sentence1973We restated a long recognized rule when we said in Little v. Duncan, 14 Md. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Maged v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
1 sentence1972Maged v. Yellow Cab Company, 237 Md. 340 . *291 The appellants claim that the trial judge was in error in not granting a directed verdict for the defense both at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case and at the conclusion of the entire case. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Singleton v. Roman
green
2 sentences1971App. 83 , 272 A. 2d 814 , at page 87: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury.” *5 1971App. 83 , 272 A. 2d 814 , at page 87: “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury.” *5 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.