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 1941–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People's Counsel for Baltimore County v. Country Ridge Shopping Center, Inc.green2 sentences2019See id. 2019See id. | 2 | 2 |
Boehm v. Anne Arundel Countygreen2 sentences2009Quoting Boehm v. Anne Arundel County, 54 Md.App. 497, 511 , 459 A.2d 590, 599 (1983), we indicated that the Board’s de novo hearing “ ‘is an entirely new hearing at which time all aspects of the case shoidd be heard anevo, as if no decision has been previously rendered[.] ’ ” Halle Companies, 339 Md. at 144 , 661 A.2d at 688 (emphasis in original). 2009Quoting Boehm v. Anne Arundel County, 54 Md.App. 497, 511 , 459 A.2d 590, 599 (1983), we indicated that the Board’s de novo hearing “ ‘is an entirely new hearing at which time all aspects of the case shoidd be heard anevo, as if no decision has been previously rendered[.] ’ ” Halle Companies, 339 Md. at 144 , 661 A.2d at 688 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 5 |
Lohrmann v. Arundel Corp.green2 sentences1995V The circuit court concluded that, although the Board could address issues not raised before the administrative hearing officer, it could not “indiscriminately entertain matters which in effect change the nature of the original controversy or application.... [T]he Board, in entertaining the Conway Road issue, expanded the scope of its inquiry to such a degree that the nature of the original application was significantly altered.” As acknowledged by the County in this case, and as noted by the Court of Special Appeals in Lohrmann v. Arundel Corp., 65 Md.App. 309, 319 , 500 A.2d 344, 349 (1985) 1995V The circuit court concluded that, although the Board could address issues not raised before the administrative hearing officer, it could not “indiscriminately entertain matters which in effect change the nature of the original controversy or application.... [T]he Board, in entertaining the Conway Road issue, expanded the scope of its inquiry to such a degree that the nature of the original application was significantly altered.” As acknowledged by the County in this case, and as noted by the Court of Special Appeals in Lohrmann v. Arundel Corp., 65 Md.App. 309, 319 , 500 A.2d 344, 349 (1985) | 1 | 2 |
Youmans v. Douron, Inc.green1 sentence2026Adding language to specify that CVS Pharmacy acted in its capacity as agent for defendant Maryland CVS would not introduce an entirely new claim. “‘[S]o long as the operative factual situation’ remains ‘essentially the same,’ a ‘new cause of action’ is not introduced by an amendment which merely sets forth ‘a new theory’ or invokes ‘different legal principles.’” Youmans v. Douron, Inc., 211 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Crowe v. Houseworthgreen1 sentence2026App. 274, 291 (2013) (quoting Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481, 485-86 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Halle Companies v. Crofton Civic Ass'ngreen2 sentences2009Quoting Boehm v. Anne Arundel County, 54 Md.App. 497, 511 , 459 A.2d 590, 599 (1983), we indicated that the Board’s de novo hearing “ ‘is an entirely new hearing at which time all aspects of the case shoidd be heard anevo, as if no decision has been previously rendered[.] ’ ” Halle Companies, 339 Md. at 144 , 661 A.2d at 688 (emphasis in original). 2009Quoting Boehm v. Anne Arundel County, 54 Md.App. 497, 511 , 459 A.2d 590, 599 (1983), we indicated that the Board’s de novo hearing “ ‘is an entirely new hearing at which time all aspects of the case shoidd be heard anevo, as if no decision has been previously rendered[.] ’ ” Halle Companies, 339 Md. at 144 , 661 A.2d at 688 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Atlantic Mill & Lumber Realty Co. v. Keefergreen2 sentences2000Meyer, trading as Atlantic Mill and Lumber Company,’ was an entirely new action and that the amended mechanics’ lien, an entirely new claim filed more than six months after the time fixed by statute[,] was no lien and is, therefore, not enforceable.” Id. at 500-01 , 20 A.2d at 181 (citation omitted). 2000Meyer, trading as Atlantic Mill and Lumber Company,’ was an entirely new action and that the amended mechanics’ lien, an entirely new claim filed more than six months after the time fixed by statute[,] was no lien and is, therefore, not enforceable.” Id. at 500-01 , 20 A.2d at 181 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
American-Stewart Distillery, Inc. v. Stewart Distilling Co.green1 sentence1977Meyer, trading as Atlantic Mill and Lumber Company,’ was an entirely new action and that the amended mechanics’ lien, an entirely new claim filed more than six months after the time fixed by statute *394 (Code, art. 63, sec. 23) was no lien and is, therefore, not enforceable.” Id. at 500-01. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wix v. Bowling
neutral
2 sentences1968Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . 1968Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . | 2 | 1941–1968 |
Ortwine v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . 1941Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . | 2 | 1941–1968 |
Trustees of the German Lutheran Evangelical St. Matthew's Congregation v. Heise
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . 1941Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . | 2 | 1941–1968 |
John W. Wilson & Son v. Wilson
neutral
2 sentences1968Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . 1941Wilson v. Wilson, 51 Md. 159 ; Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134, 138 ; Trustees v. Heise, 44 Md. 453 ; Wix v. Bowling, 120 Md. 265, at 267-269 , 87 A. 759 . | 2 | 1941–1968 |
Callahan v. Clemens
green
2 sentences1977(Citing cases.) Reference to the forfeiture statute was made in Callahan v. Clemens, 184 Md. 520 , 41 A. 2d 473 (1945), where suit was brought against the directors, as trustees of a corporation whose charter had been forfeited for nonpayment of taxes. 1977(Citing cases.) Reference to the forfeiture statute was made in Callahan v. Clemens, 184 Md. 520 , 41 A. 2d 473 (1945), where suit was brought against the directors, as trustees of a corporation whose charter had been forfeited for nonpayment of taxes. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. William Phillips & Sons
green
2 sentences1971Mechanics’ Liens § 161 (1948), it has long been established in Maryland that while an improper statement of ownership may be corrected by amendment, Wilhelm v. Roe, 158 Md. 615 , 149 A. 438 (1930); Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 515 , 45 A. 174 (1900), an improper description of the property against which the lien is asserted may not be corrected after the time for filing the lien has passed, because this would amount to an entirely new claim of lien, Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35 (1871). 1971Mechanics’ Liens § 161 (1948), it has long been established in Maryland that while an improper statement of ownership may be corrected by amendment, Wilhelm v. Roe, 158 Md. 615 , 149 A. 438 (1930); Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 515 , 45 A. 174 (1900), an improper description of the property against which the lien is asserted may not be corrected after the time for filing the lien has passed, because this would amount to an entirely new claim of lien, Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35 (1871). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Wilhelm v. Roe
green
2 sentences1971Mechanics’ Liens § 161 (1948), it has long been established in Maryland that while an improper statement of ownership may be corrected by amendment, Wilhelm v. Roe, 158 Md. 615 , 149 A. 438 (1930); Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 515 , 45 A. 174 (1900), an improper description of the property against which the lien is asserted may not be corrected after the time for filing the lien has passed, because this would amount to an entirely new claim of lien, Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35 (1871). 1971Mechanics’ Liens § 161 (1948), it has long been established in Maryland that while an improper statement of ownership may be corrected by amendment, Wilhelm v. Roe, 158 Md. 615 , 149 A. 438 (1930); Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 515 , 45 A. 174 (1900), an improper description of the property against which the lien is asserted may not be corrected after the time for filing the lien has passed, because this would amount to an entirely new claim of lien, Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35 (1871). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Gault v. Wittman
neutral
1 sentence1971Mechanics’ Liens § 161 (1948), it has long been established in Maryland that while an improper statement of ownership may be corrected by amendment, Wilhelm v. Roe, 158 Md. 615 , 149 A. 438 (1930); Real Estate & Improvement Co. v. Phillips, 90 Md. 515 , 45 A. 174 (1900), an improper description of the property against which the lien is asserted may not be corrected after the time for filing the lien has passed, because this would amount to an entirely new claim of lien, Gault v. Wittman, 34 Md. 35 (1871). | 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.