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.
11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eagan v. Calhoungreen2 sentences2019In Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 (1997), the Court of Appeals noted that, “Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer . . . that ‘[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.’” Id. at 88 (citation omitted). 2019In Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 (1997), the Court of Appeals noted that, “Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer . . . that ‘[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.’” Id. at 88 (citation omitted). | 3 | 7 |
Wilson Brothers v. Cooeygreen2 sentences2006The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel by admission, has been elucidated in a historical context by Judge Alan Wilner, writing for this Court in Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997): Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, that `a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.' In Stone v. Stone [, 230 Md. 248 , 186 A.2d 590 (1962)] and Wilson Brothers v. Cooey [, 251 Md. 350 , 247 A.2d 395 (1968)], we adopted the state 2006The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel by admission, has been elucidated in a historical context by Judge Alan Wilner, writing for this Court in Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997): Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, that `a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.' In Stone v. Stone [, 230 Md. 248 , 186 A.2d 590 (1962)] and Wilson Brothers v. Cooey [, 251 Md. 350 , 247 A.2d 395 (1968)], we adopted the state | 2 | 3 |
Van Royen v. Laceygreen2 sentences1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M 1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M | 2 | 2 |
Dashiell v. Meeksgreen2 sentences2008In Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72, 87-88 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997), the Court of Appeals explained: Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” *209 As the Court explained in Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149, 171 , 913 A.2d 10 (2006), there are three elements to judicial estoppel: (1) one of the parties takes a factual position that is inconsistent with a position it took in previou 2008In Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72, 87-88 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997), the Court of Appeals explained: Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” *209 As the Court explained in Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149, 171 , 913 A.2d 10 (2006), there are three elements to judicial estoppel: (1) one of the parties takes a factual position that is inconsistent with a position it took in previou | 1 | 2 |
Underwood-Gary v. Mathewsgreen2 sentences2006See also Underwood-Gary v. Mathews, 366 Md. 660 , 667 n. 6, 785 A.2d 708 , 712 n. 6 (2001) (defining judicial estoppel as "a principle that precludes a party from taking a position in a subsequent action inconsistent with a position taken by him or her in a previous action"). 2006See also Underwood-Gary v. Mathews, 366 Md. 660 , 667 n. 6, 785 A.2d 708 , 712 n. 6 (2001) (defining judicial estoppel as "a principle that precludes a party from taking a position in a subsequent action inconsistent with a position taken by him or her in a previous action"). | 1 | 2 |
Stone v. Stonegreen2 sentences2006The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel by admission, has been elucidated in a historical context by Judge Alan Wilner, writing for this Court in Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997): Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, that `a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.' In Stone v. Stone [, 230 Md. 248 , 186 A.2d 590 (1962)] and Wilson Brothers v. Cooey [, 251 Md. 350 , 247 A.2d 395 (1968)], we adopted the state 2006The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel by admission, has been elucidated in a historical context by Judge Alan Wilner, writing for this Court in Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72 , 698 A.2d 1097 (1997): Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, that `a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.' In Stone v. Stone [, 230 Md. 248 , 186 A.2d 590 (1962)] and Wilson Brothers v. Cooey [, 251 Md. 350 , 247 A.2d 395 (1968)], we adopted the state | 1 | 2 |
Standard Fire Insurance v. Berrettgreen2 sentences2017Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 462 , 910 A.2d 1072, 1086 (2006), this Court elaborated on the historical context of judicial estoppel, stating: Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer ... that a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.... [W]e adopted the statement of that prineiple[:] Generally speaking, a party will not be permitted to maintain inconsistent positions or to take a position in regard to a matter which is directly contrary to, or inconsiste 2017Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 462 , 910 A.2d 1072, 1086 (2006), this Court elaborated on the historical context of judicial estoppel, stating: Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English Court of Exchequer ... that a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.... [W]e adopted the statement of that prineiple[:] Generally speaking, a party will not be permitted to maintain inconsistent positions or to take a position in regard to a matter which is directly contrary to, or inconsiste | 1 | 1 |
Kobrine, L.L.C. v. Metzgeryellow1 sentence2003Similarly, this Court explained in Gordon v. Posner, 142 Md.App. 399, 424 , 790 A.2d 675 , cert. denied, 369 Md. 180 , 798 A.2d 552 (2002), that “fjludicial estoppel, also known as the ‘doctrine against inconsistent positions,’ and ‘estoppel by admission,’ prevents ‘a party who successfully pursued a position in a prior legal proceeding from asserting a contrary position in a later proceeding.’ ” (quoting Roane v. Washington Co. Hosp., 137 Md.App. 582, 592 , 769 A.2d 263 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 463 , 773 A.2d 514 (2001)); see also Kobrine v. Metzger, 151 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Edes v. Gareygreen1 sentence1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. McCanngreen1 sentence1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gordon v. Posner
green
2 sentences2019Indeed, this Court explained in Gordon v. Posner, 142 Md. 2003Similarly, this Court explained in Gordon v. Posner, 142 Md.App. 399, 424 , 790 A.2d 675 , cert. denied, 369 Md. 180 , 798 A.2d 552 (2002), that “fjludicial estoppel, also known as the ‘doctrine against inconsistent positions,’ and ‘estoppel by admission,’ prevents ‘a party who successfully pursued a position in a prior legal proceeding from asserting a contrary position in a later proceeding.’ ” (quoting Roane v. Washington Co. Hosp., 137 Md.App. 582, 592 , 769 A.2d 263 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 463 , 773 A.2d 514 (2001)); see also Kobrine v. Metzger, 151 Md. | 2 | 2003–2019 |
Roane v. Washington County Hospital
green
2 sentences2003Similarly, this Court explained in Gordon v. Posner, 142 Md.App. 399, 424 , 790 A.2d 675 , cert. denied, 369 Md. 180 , 798 A.2d 552 (2002), that “fjludicial estoppel, also known as the ‘doctrine against inconsistent positions,’ and ‘estoppel by admission,’ prevents ‘a party who successfully pursued a position in a prior legal proceeding from asserting a contrary position in a later proceeding.’ ” (quoting Roane v. Washington Co. Hosp., 137 Md.App. 582, 592 , 769 A.2d 263 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 463 , 773 A.2d 514 (2001)); see also Kobrine v. Metzger, 151 Md. 2003Similarly, this Court explained in Gordon v. Posner, 142 Md.App. 399, 424 , 790 A.2d 675 , cert. denied, 369 Md. 180 , 798 A.2d 552 (2002), that “fjludicial estoppel, also known as the ‘doctrine against inconsistent positions,’ and ‘estoppel by admission,’ prevents ‘a party who successfully pursued a position in a prior legal proceeding from asserting a contrary position in a later proceeding.’ ” (quoting Roane v. Washington Co. Hosp., 137 Md.App. 582, 592 , 769 A.2d 263 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 463 , 773 A.2d 514 (2001)); see also Kobrine v. Metzger, 151 Md. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Mathews v. Gary
green
1 sentence2002Consequently, judicial estoppel “precludes a party who ... secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.” Mathews v. Gary, 133 Md.App. 570, 579 , 758 *425 A.2d 1019 (2000), aff'd on other grounds, 366 Md. 660 , 785 A.2d 708 (2001)(quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mobberly v. Mobberly
green
1 sentence1997See also Wilson Bros. v. Cooey, 251 Md. 350, 359 , 247 A.2d 395 (1968)(noting that where the “Lienors”’had acknowledged the senior status of another mortgage in a previous proceeding but had thereafter challenged that mortgage’s validity, the doctrine of estoppel by admission may have been applicable); Mobberly v. Mobberly, 60 Md. 376 (1883)(holding that a party who had previously contended in a different suit that he had no defenses under the common law could not later assert that title was in himself by way of adverse possession). *217 We have not discovered any Maryland case in which the do | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Scanlon v. Walshe
green
2 sentences1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M 1997The elements are prima facie within the ambit of the slayer’s rule.” (Emphasis in original.) Maryland has long recognized the doctrine of estoppel by admission, derived from the rule laid down by the English *88 Court of Exchequer in Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & W. 927 that “[a] man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold, to claim at one time and deny at another.” See Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 24, 41 (1877); see also Hall v. McCann, 51 Md. 345, 351 (1879); Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 132 , 31 A. 498 (1895); Stone v. Stone, 230 Md. 248, 253 , 186 A.2d 590, 593 (1962); Wilson Brothers v. Cooey, 251 M | 1 | 1997–1997 |