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.
10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
CSR, Ltd. v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2020We have not considered Mona’s health as part of our analysis. 31 does not shift to Mona to “present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477 ; see CSR, Ltd., 411 Md. at 493 (noting that because the defendant’s contacts with Maryland did not satisfy the “purposeful availment” requirement, the Court did not need to “consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable as required by our tests for either specific or general jurisdiction”). | 1 | 1 |
Traylor v. Graftongreen2 sentences2015Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649 , 651-59, 332 A.2d 651 , 654-59 (1975). 2015Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649 , 651-59, 332 A.2d 651 , 654-59 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Hanon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015We have referred also to lex loci contractus when determining whether a California marriage contract was valid, 15 Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 444-45 , 44 A.3d 970, 975-76 (2012); see also Hanon v. State, 63 Md. 123, 128-29 (1885) (determining validity of a marriage contract), and when interpreting the damages clause of a contract. 2015We have referred also to lex loci contractus when determining whether a 14 California marriage contract was valid,15 Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435 , 444-45, 44 A.3d 970 , 975-76 (2012); see also Hanon v. State, 63 Md. 123 , 128-29 (1885) (determining validity of a marriage contract), and when interpreting the damages clause of a contract. | 1 | 1 |
Port v. Cowangreen2 sentences2015We have referred also to lex loci contractus when determining whether a 14 California marriage contract was valid,15 Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435 , 444-45, 44 A.3d 970 , 975-76 (2012); see also Hanon v. State, 63 Md. 123 , 128-29 (1885) (determining validity of a marriage contract), and when interpreting the damages clause of a contract. 2015We have referred also to lex loci contractus when determining whether a 14 California marriage contract was valid,15 Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435 , 444-45, 44 A.3d 970 , 975-76 (2012); see also Hanon v. State, 63 Md. 123 , 128-29 (1885) (determining validity of a marriage contract), and when interpreting the damages clause of a contract. | 1 | 1 |
Brannock Associates, Inc. v. Capitol 801 Corp.green1 sentence2011See also Brannock Assoc., Inc. v. Capitol 801 Corp., 807 F.Supp. 127, 134-35 (D.D.C.1992) (holding that the federal declaratory judgment act did not apply and res judicata barred a damages claim where plaintiff sought both declaratory and coercive relief in the earlier declaratory judgment action). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
1 sentence2020We have not considered Mona’s health as part of our analysis. 31 does not shift to Mona to “present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477 ; see CSR, Ltd., 411 Md. at 493 (noting that because the defendant’s contacts with Maryland did not satisfy the “purposeful availment” requirement, the Court did not need to “consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable as required by our tests for either specific or general jurisdiction”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Banegura v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2012Rule 2—613(f); Banegura v. Taylor, 312 Md. 609 [ 541 A.2d 969 ] (1988). 2012Rule 2—613(f); Banegura v. Taylor, 312 Md. 609 [ 541 A.2d 969 ] (1988). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Monarc Construction, Inc. v. Aris Corp.
green
2 sentences2011In Maryland, the entry of final judgment on a contract case extinguishes any contract-based right to further attorneys’ fees because “attorney’s fees recoverable pursuant to a contract are part of the damages claim.” AccuBid, 188 Md.App. at 231 , 981 A.2d 727 (citations and quotations omitted); Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377 , *403 399, 981 A.2d 822 (2009). 2011In Maryland, the entry of final judgment on a contract case extinguishes any contract-based right to further attorneys’ fees because “attorney’s fees recoverable pursuant to a contract are part of the damages claim.” AccuBid, 188 Md.App. at 231 , 981 A.2d 727 (citations and quotations omitted); Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377 , *403 399, 981 A.2d 822 (2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Accubid Excavation, Inc. v. Kennedy Contractors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011In Maryland, the entry of final judgment on a contract case extinguishes any contract-based right to further attorneys’ fees because “attorney’s fees recoverable pursuant to a contract are part of the damages claim.” AccuBid, 188 Md.App. at 231 , 981 A.2d 727 (citations and quotations omitted); Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377 , *403 399, 981 A.2d 822 (2009). 2011In Maryland, the entry of final judgment on a contract case extinguishes any contract-based right to further attorneys’ fees because “attorney’s fees recoverable pursuant to a contract are part of the damages claim.” AccuBid, 188 Md.App. at 231 , 981 A.2d 727 (citations and quotations omitted); Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377 , *403 399, 981 A.2d 822 (2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Fisher v. McCrary Crescent City, LLC
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 131-33 , 972 A.2d 954 . 2011Id. at 131-33 , 972 A.2d 954 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Greer v. Inman
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 352 , 556 A.2d 1140 . 2009Id. at 352 , 556 A.2d 1140 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michael
green
2 sentences2007Emphasizing that the buyer’s damages claim fell within the “collateral profits” category delineated in the decision in M & R Contractors, supra, 215 Md. at 347 , 138 A.2d 350 , it concluded that the buyer’s proof was too “conjectural and speculative” to allow recovery. 2007Emphasizing that the buyer’s damages claim fell within the “collateral profits” category delineated in the decision in M & R Contractors, supra, 215 Md. at 347 , 138 A.2d 350 , it concluded that the buyer’s proof was too “conjectural and speculative” to allow recovery. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pak v. Hoang
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 319, 835 A.2d 1185 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Scavenger Sale Investors, L.P. v. Robert Anthony Bryant
green
1 sentence2005Moreover, as Judge Easterbrook observed in upholding the damages clause of a settlement agreement, “[everything depends on which end of the telescope one looks through.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.