9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 344807green2 sentences2001Because a forged indorsement generally does not confer good title, the draw-ee bank can recover upstream under a breach of warranty claim “against a[ny] person who presented a check bearing a forged indorsement.” See Perini 553 F.2d at 404 . 336 Md. at 337 , 648 A.2d 453 (footnote omitted). 1994See §§ 3-417(l)(a) and 4-207(l)(a) (prior transferors warrant that they have “good title to the instrument”). 3 Because a forged indorsement generally does not confer good title, the drawee bank can recover upstream under a breach of warranty claim “against a[ny] person who presented a check bearing a forged indorsement.” See Perini, 553 F.2d at 404. | 1 | 2 |
Giant Food, Inc. v. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences2008This rule of law applies with equal force to an implied warranty.” In Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co., 365 Md. 321, 334 , 779 A.2d 362, 370 (2001), we declared, “ ‘to allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probable than not that the defect existed at the time of sale ....’” (quoting Giant Food, Inc. v. Wash. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 273 Md. 592, 608-09 , 332 A.2d 1, 10 (1975)). 5 Stated another way, the plaintiff in a breach of warranty 2008This rule of law applies with equal force to an implied warranty.” In Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co., 365 Md. 321, 334 , 779 A.2d 362, 370 (2001), we declared, “ ‘to allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probable than not that the defect existed at the time of sale ....’” (quoting Giant Food, Inc. v. Wash. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 273 Md. 592, 608-09 , 332 A.2d 1, 10 (1975)). 5 Stated another way, the plaintiff in a breach of warranty | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurancegreen2 sentences2008This rule of law applies with equal force to an implied warranty.” In Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co., 365 Md. 321, 334 , 779 A.2d 362, 370 (2001), we declared, “ ‘to allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probable than not that the defect existed at the time of sale ....’” (quoting Giant Food, Inc. v. Wash. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 273 Md. 592, 608-09 , 332 A.2d 1, 10 (1975)). 5 Stated another way, the plaintiff in a breach of warranty 2008This rule of law applies with equal force to an implied warranty.” In Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co., 365 Md. 321, 334 , 779 A.2d 362, 370 (2001), we declared, “ ‘to allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probable than not that the defect existed at the time of sale ....’” (quoting Giant Food, Inc. v. Wash. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 273 Md. 592, 608-09 , 332 A.2d 1, 10 (1975)). 5 Stated another way, the plaintiff in a breach of warranty | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Glen Burnie v. Loyola Federal Savings Bank
green
2 sentences2001Because a forged indorsement generally does not confer good title, the draw-ee bank can recover upstream under a breach of warranty claim “against a[ny] person who presented a check bearing a forged indorsement.” See Perini 553 F.2d at 404 . 336 Md. at 337 , 648 A.2d 453 (footnote omitted). 2001Because a forged indorsement generally does not confer good title, the draw-ee bank can recover upstream under a breach of warranty claim “against a[ny] person who presented a check bearing a forged indorsement.” See Perini 553 F.2d at 404 . 336 Md. at 337 , 648 A.2d 453 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 1998–2001 |
Gensler v. Korb Roofers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 541 , 378 A.2d 180 . 2013Id. at 541 , 378 A.2d 180 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mills v. International Harvester Co.
green
1 sentence2013In Mills , the decedent was injured fatally by a tractor more than eleven years after it was sold to him, and more than seven years after the four-year statute of limitations applicable to the underlying breach of warranty claim ran. 554 F.Supp. at 612 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Beard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Thompson Plastics, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007The court pointed out that a more specific provision, § 8.2-715(2)(a), “requires a contract between the parties for recovery of consequential economic loss damages” in a breach of warranty claim. 491 S.E.2d at 734 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commercial Union Insurance v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2000The standard for appellate review of a summary judgment is whether the trial court was “legally correct.” Commercial Union v. Harleysville, 110 Md.App. 45, 51 , 675 A.2d 1059 (1996) (citing Baltimore Gas & Elec. 2000The standard for appellate review of a summary judgment is whether the trial court was “legally correct.” Commercial Union v. Harleysville, 110 Md.App. 45, 51 , 675 A.2d 1059 (1996) (citing Baltimore Gas & Elec. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sard v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2000In Sard v. Hardy, supra, 281 Md. 432, 451-52 , 379 A.2d 1014, 1026-27 , a breach of warranty claim was made, based on an alleged assurance by Dr. Hardy, following the surgery, that Ms. Sard was absolutely sterile and could not again become pregnant. 2000In Sard v. Hardy, supra, 281 Md. 432, 451-52 , 379 A.2d 1014, 1026-27 , a breach of warranty claim was made, based on an alleged assurance by Dr. Hardy, following the surgery, that Ms. Sard was absolutely sterile and could not again become pregnant. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.