13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bartholomee v. Caseygreen2 sentences2007See Bartholomee v. Casey, 103 Md.App. at 51 , 651 A.2d 908 . 2007See Bartholomee v. Casey, 103 Md.App. at 51 , 651 A.2d 908 . | 3 | 3 |
Mona v. Mona Electric Group, Inc.green2 sentences2017Grp., Inc., 176 Md.App. 672, 710 , 934 A.2d 450, 472 (2007), in which the Court of Special Appeals affirmed a trial court’s sua sponte raising the doctrine of unclean hands at a JNOV hearing and entering JNOV, in part, on that basis. 2017Grp., Inc., 176 Md.App. 672, 710 , 934 A.2d 450, 472 (2007), in which the Court of Special Appeals affirmed a trial court’s sua sponte raising the doctrine of unclean hands at a JNOV hearing and entering JNOV, in part, on that basis. | 1 | 2 |
Jacobs v. Flynngreen2 sentences2012However, if the evidence “does not rise above speculation, hypothesis, and conjecture, and does not lead to the jury’s conclusion with reasonable certainty, then the denial of the JNOV was error.” Jacobs v. Flynn, 131 Md.App. 342, 353 , 749 A.2d 174 (2000) (citation omitted). 2012However, if the evidence “does not rise above speculation, hypothesis, and conjecture, and does not lead to the jury’s conclusion with reasonable certainty, then the denial of the JNOV was error.” Jacobs v. Flynn, 131 Md.App. 342, 353 , 749 A.2d 174 (2000) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Giant Food, Inc. v. Bookergreen2 sentences2012Standard of Review/Tenets of Statutory Construction In reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on the County’s JNOV motion, we consider “the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.” C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 290 , 22 A.3d 867 (2011); see also Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166, 176 , 831 A.2d 481 (2003) (“We review the denial of a motion for judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... under the same appellate lens.”) We will affirm a circuit court’s denial 2012Standard of Review/Tenets of Statutory Construction In reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on the County’s JNOV motion, we consider “the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.” C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 290 , 22 A.3d 867 (2011); see also Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166, 176 , 831 A.2d 481 (2003) (“We review the denial of a motion for judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... under the same appellate lens.”) We will affirm a circuit court’s denial | 1 | 2 |
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Savillegreen1 sentence2024Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville, 418 Md. 496, 503 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Sage Title Group, LLC v. Romangreen2 sentences2021Rule 2-532(a) provides that a motion for JNOV may be made “only on the grounds advanced in support of the [motion for judgment].” As the Court of Appeals said in Sage Title Group, LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 216 (2017): “Sage Title waived its unclean hands/in pari delicto argument because it failed to articulate this ground in its motion for judgment and could not ‘renew’ the argument for purposes of its JNOV motion.” Id. at 216 . 2021Rule 2-532(a) provides that a motion for JNOV may be made “only on the grounds advanced in support of the [motion for judgment].” As the Court of Appeals said in Sage Title Group, LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 216 (2017): “Sage Title waived its unclean hands/in pari delicto argument because it failed to articulate this ground in its motion for judgment and could not ‘renew’ the argument for purposes of its JNOV motion.” Id. at 216 . | 1 | 1 |
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Savillegreen2 sentences2013Rule 2-532(a) expressly states, however, that “[i]n a jury trial, a party may move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if that party made a motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence and only on the grounds advanced in support of the earlier motion.” Though recognizing some merit in Ford’s contention that, until Ford’s liability was established, a motion for judgment on those cross-claims would have been premature, the trial court, relying largely on Scapa v. Saville, 190 Md.App. 331, 348-51 , 988 A.2d 1059, 1068-70 (2010) concluded that a motion for judgment was indeed a p 2013Rule 2-532(a) expressly states, however, that “[i]n a jury trial, a party may move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if that party made a motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence and only on the grounds advanced in support of the earlier motion.” Though recognizing some merit in Ford’s contention that, until Ford’s liability was established, a motion for judgment on those cross-claims would have been premature, the trial court, relying largely on Scapa v. Saville, 190 Md.App. 331, 348-51 , 988 A.2d 1059, 1068-70 (2010) concluded that a motion for judgment was indeed a p | 1 | 1 |
C & M Builders, LLC v. Strubgreen2 sentences2012Standard of Review/Tenets of Statutory Construction In reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on the County’s JNOV motion, we consider “the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.” C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 290 , 22 A.3d 867 (2011); see also Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166, 176 , 831 A.2d 481 (2003) (“We review the denial of a motion for judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... under the same appellate lens.”) We will affirm a circuit court’s denial 2012Standard of Review/Tenets of Statutory Construction In reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on the County’s JNOV motion, we consider “the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.” C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 290 , 22 A.3d 867 (2011); see also Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166, 176 , 831 A.2d 481 (2003) (“We review the denial of a motion for judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... under the same appellate lens.”) We will affirm a circuit court’s denial | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2012Put another way, we will reverse the court’s ruling on the motion only “if the facts and circumstances permit but a single inference as relates to the appellate issue presented.” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 31 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012). 2012Put another way, we will reverse the court’s ruling on the motion only “if the facts and circumstances permit but a single inference as relates to the appellate issue presented.” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 31 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., Inc., 170 Md.App. 293, 317 , 907 A.2d 276 (2006). 2007Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., Inc., 170 Md.App. 293, 317 , 907 A.2d 276 (2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.