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 1913–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp.green2 sentences2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 5 | 5 |
Warburton v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 4 | 4 |
Syester v. Brewergreen2 sentences2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2009See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm'rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 183 , 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959)(noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, `equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed'); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914)(recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to a comp | 4 | 4 |
Ipes v. Board of Fire Commissionersgreen2 sentences2017See, e,g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 *436 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2009See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm'rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 183 , 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959)(noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, `equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed'); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914)(recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to a comp | 3 | 3 |
Kaufman v. Plittgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 2 | 2 |
Berman v. Lecknergreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 2 | 2 |
Buxton v. Buxtongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 2 | 2 |
Parker v. Board of Election Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 2 | 2 |
Rettaliata v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1966In this case we are not confronted with the question of limitations or a stale claim as was the Court in Rettaliata v. Sullivan, 208 Md. 617 , 119 A. 2d 420 (1956). 1966In this case we are not confronted with the question of limitations or a stale claim as was the Court in Rettaliata v. Sullivan, 208 Md. 617 , 119 A. 2d 420 (1956). | 1 | 2 |
Day v. Daygreen2 sentences2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). 2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Bowie v. Fordgreen2 sentences2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). 2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Brashears v. Collisongreen2 sentences2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). 2007In its application, “[tjhere is no inflexible rule as to what constitutes, or what does not constitute, laches; hence its existence must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ross, 387 Md. at 669 , 876 A.2d at 704 , quoting Parker, 230 Md. at 130 , 186 A.2d at 197 , citing Brashears v. Collison, 207 Md. 339, 352 , 115 A.2d 289, 295 (1955); Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 122 , 304 A.2d 803, 810 (1973); Day v. Day, 237 Md. 229, 236 , 205 A.2d 798, 803 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. State Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to 2007See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. *243 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465, 468 , 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231 , 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (recognizing that a court, in a proper case and on its own motion, may refuse to grant relief to | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2005In the case of complete preemption, also called field preemption, Congress "so completely pre-empt[s] a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.” Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63-64 , 107 S.Ct. 1542 . 2005In the case of complete preemption, also called field preemption, Congress "so completely pre-empt[s] a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.” Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63-64 , 107 S.Ct. 1542 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Marowitz v. Land
neutral
1 sentence1923As was said in Matrowitz v. Land, 130 Md. 514, 521 , “It is essential to the validity of the transfer of the property to Marowitz that it was not only made on a good consideration, but that it was also bona fide. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Stone v. Illinois Central Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1913Co., 116 U.S. 347 ; Stone et al . v. New Orleans Northeastern R.R. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1913If this Court has any judicial curiosity left for such a stale inquiry as this distinction involves, it will soon be set at rest, we think, by an examination of the following authorities: Stone et al . v. Farmers' Loan Trust Co., 116 U.S. 307 , 336; Stone et al . v. Illinois Central R.R. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.