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 1 courts 1895–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.green2 sentences2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts 2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts | 1 | 1 |
Local 453 v. Otis Elevator Companygreen1 sentence2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Malloy v. Hogan
green
1 sentence2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Roofire Alarm Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bruzgo v. United States
green
1 sentence2016Workers, AFL-CIO v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949 , 83 S.Ct. 1680 , 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963), as an illustration of the principle that a court may not substitute its interpretation of a contract for an arbitrator’s: Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question of whether [an employee]’s conduct and criminal conviction constituted “just cause” for discharge, the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits; “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan
green
2 sentences2014Ultimately, “[i]t is ... for us, however, to determine whether the judge’s findings are, indeed, supported by substantial evidence.” Maignan, 390 Md. at 293 , 888 A.2d at 347 . 2014Ultimately, “[i]t is ... for us, however, to determine whether the judge’s findings are, indeed, supported by substantial evidence.” Maignan, 390 Md. at 293 , 888 A.2d at 347 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kusi v. State
green
2 sentences2014The opinion in Maignan offers an illustration of this principle: “If the check admitted into evidence was blue in color, and we could see it was blue in color, we certainly would not accept the judge’s crediting of the office manager’s testimony that it was yellow.” Id. 2014The opinion in Maignan offers an illustration of this principle: “If the check admitted into evidence was blue in color, and we could see it was blue in color, we certainly would not accept the judge’s crediting of the office manager’s testimony that it was yellow.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Jackerson
green
2 sentences2001People v. Jackerson, 247 N. Y. 36 , 159 N. E. 715 , is an illustration of the requirement of criminal intent. 2001People v. Jackerson, 247 N. Y. 36 , 159 N. E. 715 , is an illustration of the requirement of criminal intent. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Link v. Wabash Railroad
green
2 sentences1982An illustration of this principle is Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 1982An illustration of this principle is Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Herries v. Bond Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1970Herries v. Bond Stores, 231 Mo. App. 1053 , 84 S. W. 2d 153 , is an illustration of the rule. 1970Herries v. Bond Stores, 231 Mo. App. 1053 , 84 S. W. 2d 153 , is an illustration of the rule. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Robinson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1955An illustration of the rule is seen in Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128 , 88 A. 2d 310 , *287 where a police officer saw a man walk toward a parked car with yellow lottery slips in his hand and pass them into the car to the appellant who was sitting in the driver’s seat, and shortly afterwards the appellant handed lottery slips and a bag of money to one of the officers. 1955An illustration of the rule is seen in Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128 , 88 A. 2d 310 , *287 where a police officer saw a man walk toward a parked car with yellow lottery slips in his hand and pass them into the car to the appellant who was sitting in the driver’s seat, and shortly afterwards the appellant handed lottery slips and a bag of money to one of the officers. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Kudla v. Pignone
neutral
2 sentences1953An illustration of this rule is Kudla v. Pignone, 119 Conn. 204 , 175 A. 469 , where the plaintiff and other workmen were riding in a Mack truck. 1953An illustration of this rule is Kudla v. Pignone, 119 Conn. 204 , 175 A. 469 , where the plaintiff and other workmen were riding in a Mack truck. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Hospital for Women Ex Rel. Green v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences1953Zittle v. Weller, 63 Md. 190 ; Hospital for Women of Maryland, for Use of Robert S. Green, Inc., v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 177 Md. 615, 11 A. 2d 457 , 128 A. L. 1953Zittle v. Weller, 63 Md. 190 ; Hospital for Women of Maryland, for Use of Robert S. Green, Inc., v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 177 Md. 615, 11 A. 2d 457 , 128 A. L. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Zittle v. Weller
green
1 sentence1953Zittle v. Weller, 63 Md. 190 ; Hospital for Women of Maryland, for Use of Robert S. Green, Inc., v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 177 Md. 615, 11 A. 2d 457 , 128 A. L. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
United Railways & Electric Co. v. Carneal
green
2 sentences1940Co. v. Corneal, 110 Md. 211 , at page 233, 72 A. 771 , for an illustration of this principle. 1940Co. v. Corneal, 110 Md. 211 , at page 233, 72 A. 771 , for an illustration of this principle. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Lebowitch v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1933Lebowitch v. Commonwealth, 235 Mass. 357 , 126 N.E. 831 . | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Smith v. Boston Gas Light Co.
green
1 sentence1895The case of Smith v. Boston Gaslight Co., 129 Mass. 318 , is an illustration of this doctrine. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.