10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Marburggreen2 sentences2008See Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Marburg, 110 Md. 410, 414-15 , 72 A. 839 (1909) (discussing the Limitation Act as the origin of the State statute of limitations for actions to recover possession of land, and recounting various enactments of the General Assembly “which have changed that statute and which prescribe the kind of evidence required to establish adverse possession”). 2008See Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Marburg, 110 Md. 410, 414-15 , 72 A. 839 (1909) (discussing the Limitation Act as the origin of the State statute of limitations for actions to recover possession of land, and recounting various enactments of the General Assembly “which have changed that statute and which prescribe the kind of evidence required to establish adverse possession”). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Milligangreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., MPJI-Civ. 2:1 (requiring a showing that possession was hostile, without mentioning a claim of title, ownership, or right); Barnes v. Milligan, 196 Neb. 50 , 241 N.W.2d 508, 511 (1976) (the terms “claim of right,” “claim of title,” and “claim of ownership” simply mean “hostile”). 2007See, e.g., MPJI-Civ. 2:1 (requiring a showing that possession was hostile, without mentioning a claim of title, ownership, or right); Barnes v. Milligan, 196 Neb. 50 , 241 N.W.2d 508, 511 (1976) (the terms “claim of right,” “claim of title,” and “claim of ownership” simply mean “hostile”). | 1 | 1 |
Gore v. Hallgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). 2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). | 1 | 1 |
Van Bibber v. Ferdinandgreen1 sentence2004See Van Bibber v. Frazier, 17 Md. 436, 451 (1861). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Pricegreen1 sentence2001See Trailwoods Homeowners’ Association v. Scott, 938 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Mo.App. 1997) (“However, ‘title by adverse possession is not a defense to a suit for delinquent taxes, ... or in itself a reason for *243 setting aside a tax sale.’ Plaintiffs title by adverse possession is not superior to defendant’s title....”) (Citation omitted.); Hughes v. Price, 229 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tex.Civ.App.1950) (Where a person asserting an adverse possession claim was not even permitted to redeem the property sold at tax sale, “Inasmuch as appellant did not own the land or any interest therein at the time of the sal | 1 | 1 |
Trailwoods Homeowners' Ass'n v. Scottgreen1 sentence2001See Trailwoods Homeowners’ Association v. Scott, 938 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Mo.App. 1997) (“However, ‘title by adverse possession is not a defense to a suit for delinquent taxes, ... or in itself a reason for *243 setting aside a tax sale.’ Plaintiffs title by adverse possession is not superior to defendant’s title....”) (Citation omitted.); Hughes v. Price, 229 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tex.Civ.App.1950) (Where a person asserting an adverse possession claim was not even permitted to redeem the property sold at tax sale, “Inasmuch as appellant did not own the land or any interest therein at the time of the sal | 1 | 1 |
Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery County v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999Rather, it contended that it had ownership "[p]ursuant to the doctrine of adverse possession, or alternatively, lost deed." Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery v. U.S., 37 Fed.Cl. 545, 587 (1997). 1999Rather, it contended that it had ownership ”[p]ursuant to the doctrine of adverse possession, or alternatively, lost deed.” Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery v. U.S., 37 Fed.Cl. 545, 587 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Lee Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Kaidengreen2 sentences1984See Lee Oldsmobile v. Kaiden, 32 Md.App. 556 , 363 A.2d 270 (1976); Rule 535 does not provide for partial rulings. 1984See Lee Oldsmobile v. Kaiden, 32 Md.App. 556 , 363 A.2d 270 (1976); Rule 535 does not provide for partial rulings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Windsor Resort Inc. v. Mayor of Ocean City
green
2 sentences2018This Court held that the appellants had successfully adversely possessed the property in Windsor, 71 Md. 2018This Court held that the appellants had successfully adversely possessed the property in Windsor. 71 Md. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Yourik v. Mallonee
green
2 sentences2008Writing for this Court, Judge Adkins discussed the doctrine of adverse possession in Yourik v. Mallonee, 174 Md.App. at 422 , 921 A.2d 869 , stating: “Adverse possession is a method whereby a person who was not the owner of property obtains a valid title to that property by the passage of time.” Md. 2008Writing for this Court, Judge Adkins discussed the doctrine of adverse possession in Yourik v. Mallonee, 174 Md.App. at 422 , 921 A.2d 869 , stating: “Adverse possession is a method whereby a person who was not the owner of property obtains a valid title to that property by the passage of time.” Md. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Ulman v. Charles Street Avenue Co.
green
2 sentences2016Ulman, 83 Md. at 143-44 , 34 A. at 368 . 2016Ulman, 83 Md. at 143-44 , 34 A. at 368 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Read v. Montgomery County
green
2 sentences2016Bhatt leans heavily on Read, 101 Md.App. at 67 , 643 A.2d at 478 , to conclude that the right-of-way here was susceptible to an adverse possession claim because the right-of-way was no longer in public use. 2016Bhatt leans heavily on Read, 101 Md.App. at 67 , 643 A.2d at 478 , to conclude that the right-of-way here was susceptible to an adverse possession claim because the right-of-way was no longer in public use. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Campbell v. Shipley
green
2 sentences2008The Court rejected the adverse possession claim on the ground that “what will amount to and be proof of adverse possession in ordinary actions of ejectment between strangers, has no application to the case before us.” Id. at 98 . 2008In the case of a tenant attempting to claim against a landlord, the Court said that “there must be, at least, some proof of an actual ouster to rebut the presumption that the possession was in accordance with the title.... ” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Evanich v. Bridge
green
2 sentences2008In one other case, Evanich v. Bridge, 170 Ohio App.3d 653 , 868 N.E.2d 747 (2007), a litigant contended on appeal that a trial court "erred in not determining that public policy considerations precluded application of the adverse-possession doctrine to statutorily platted residential subdivisions.” Id. at 752 . 2008In one other case, Evanich v. Bridge, 170 Ohio App.3d 653 , 868 N.E.2d 747 (2007), a litigant contended on appeal that a trial court "erred in not determining that public policy considerations precluded application of the adverse-possession doctrine to statutorily platted residential subdivisions.” Id. at 752 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dean v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence2007Yourik argues this was error, because “an adverse possession claim cannot be sustained where the person claiming adverse possession admits title in another.” Although we found no Maryland precedent specifically addressing this question, our review of established principles governing adverse possession persuades us that adverse possession is possible in this commonly occurring scenario. 2 *424 In Dean v. Brown, 23 Md. 11 , 1865 WL 1942 , *3 (1865), the Court of Appeals stated: The rule at law, as well as in equity, established by an unbroken course of authority, is, that possession, to be adver | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). 2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Siejack v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). 2007See, e.g., Gore v. Hall, 206 Md. 485, 491 , 112 A.2d 675 (1955)(claimant asserted color of title based on recorded deeds); Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'n, 246 Md. 288 , 228 A.2d 421 (1967) (claim based on mistake as to boundary of deeded property); Siejack v. Baltimore, 270 Md. 640 , 313 A.2d 843 (1974)(claimant occupied under deed). | 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.