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.
9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025“The trigger for a statute of limitations is ‘typically . . . the accrual of a claim,’ which is most often the occurrence or discovery of injury.” Id. (citing Anderson, 427 Md. at 118 ). “[S]tatutes of repose are characterized by a trigger that starts the statutory clock running for when an action may be brought based on some event, act, or omission that is unrelated to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anderson, 427 Md. at 119 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 611-12 (2013) (“The chief feature of a statute of repose 2025“The trigger for a statute of limitations is ‘typically . . . the accrual of a claim,’ which is most often the occurrence or discovery of injury.” Id. (citing Anderson, 427 Md. at 118 ). “[S]tatutes of repose are characterized by a trigger that starts the statutory clock running for when an action may be brought based on some event, act, or omission that is unrelated to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anderson, 427 Md. at 119 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 611-12 (2013) (“The chief feature of a statute of repose | 1 | 4 |
Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc.green1 sentence2025“The trigger for a statute of limitations is ‘typically . . . the accrual of a claim,’ which is most often the occurrence or discovery of injury.” Id. (citing Anderson, 427 Md. at 118 ). “[S]tatutes of repose are characterized by a trigger that starts the statutory clock running for when an action may be brought based on some event, act, or omission that is unrelated to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anderson, 427 Md. at 119 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 611-12 (2013) (“The chief feature of a statute of repose | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Archbishop of Washington v. Doe
green
1 sentence2025“The trigger for a statute of limitations is ‘typically . . . the accrual of a claim,’ which is most often the occurrence or discovery of injury.” Id. (citing Anderson, 427 Md. at 118 ). “[S]tatutes of repose are characterized by a trigger that starts the statutory clock running for when an action may be brought based on some event, act, or omission that is unrelated to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anderson, 427 Md. at 119 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 611-12 (2013) (“The chief feature of a statute of repose | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Poffenberger v. Risser
green
2 sentences2011Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 635-36 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981). 2011Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 635-36 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner
green
2 sentences2005Notwithstanding, as will be discussed, infra, the Court of Appeals has rejected the Grimshaw approach as "unworkable” in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner, 369 Md. 369 , 800 A.2d 727 (2002). 2005Notwithstanding, as will be discussed, infra, the Court of Appeals has rejected the Grimshaw approach as "unworkable” in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner, 369 Md. 369 , 800 A.2d 727 (2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Owens Corning v. Bauman
green
1 sentence2005The Buttram court, we said in Bauman , had distinguished the decision of the Court of Appeals in Armstrong II on the basis that the Armstrong II court had not considered "analogous policy considerations and purposes to be served in adopting an accrual rule that determines the applicability of a ... statutes such as Proposition 51." We therefore held that, as the Buttram court itself pointed out, resort to the diagnosis/discovery of actual injury standard, articulated in its decision, was mandated by the express language of proposition 51. 125 Md.App. at 473-74, 726 A.2d 745 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Harbor Court Associates v. Leo A. Daly Co.
green
2 sentences2000Recently, in Harbor Court Associates v. Leo A. Daly Co., 179 F.3d 147 (4th Cir.1999), the Fourth Circuit, applying Maryland law, held that the accrual clause in the owner-architect contract before it, which was substantively similar to *176 the provision before us, 2 was a proper and effective limitation on the discovery rule. 2000Recently, in Harbor Court Associates v. Leo A. Daly Co., 179 F.3d 147 (4th Cir.1999), the Fourth Circuit, applying Maryland law, held that the accrual clause in the owner-architect contract before it, which was substantively similar to *176 the provision before us, 2 was a proper and effective limitation on the discovery rule. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
1 sentence1999Buttram ultimately distinguishes Armstrong II on the basis that the Court of Appeals had not considered “analogous policy considerations and purposes to be served in adopting an accrual rule that determines the applicability of a ... statute such as Proposition 51.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1985Id. at 666-67 , 464 A.2d at 1026-27 . 1985Id. at 666-67 , 464 A.2d at 1026-27 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.