claim preclusion doctrine (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

claim preclusion doctrine in Maryland

9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2015 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen
md · 2004 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2009
2 sentences

2009See also Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390 , 171 A.2d 92, 94 (1961) and Lizzi v. WMATA, 384 Md. 199, 206-07 , 862 A.2d 1017, 1022 (2004).

2009See also Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390 , 171 A.2d 92, 94 (1961) and Lizzi v. WMATA, 384 Md. 199, 206-07 , 862 A.2d 1017, 1022 (2004).

22
Alvey v. Alveygreen
md · 1961 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2009
2 sentences

2009See also Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390 , 171 A.2d 92, 94 (1961) and Lizzi v. WMATA, 384 Md. 199, 206-07 , 862 A.2d 1017, 1022 (2004).

2009See also Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390 , 171 A.2d 92, 94 (1961) and Lizzi v. WMATA, 384 Md. 199, 206-07 , 862 A.2d 1017, 1022 (2004).

22
Attorney Grievance Commission v. AYELEgreen
md · 2008 · cited in 7 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015
2 sentences

2015The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, “bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.” R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008) (quoting Board of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93, 106 , 887 A.2d 1029 (2005)).

2011“Res judicata, or the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.’ ” Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377, 388 , 981 A.2d 822 (2009) (quoting R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008)) (emphasis omitted).

17
Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norvillegreen
md · 2005 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015
2 sentences

2015The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, “bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.” R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008) (quoting Board of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93, 106 , 887 A.2d 1029 (2005)).

2015The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, “bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.” R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008) (quoting Board of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93, 106 , 887 A.2d 1029 (2005)).

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice green
md · 2008
2 sentences

2015The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, “bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.” R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008) (quoting Board of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93, 106 , 887 A.2d 1029 (2005)).

2011“Res judicata, or the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.’ ” Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377, 388 , 981 A.2d 822 (2009) (quoting R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008)) (emphasis omitted).

72008–2015
Monarc Construction, Inc. v. Aris Corp. green
mdctspecapp · 2009
2 sentences

2011“Res judicata, or the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.’ ” Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377, 388 , 981 A.2d 822 (2009) (quoting R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008)) (emphasis omitted).

2011“Res judicata, or the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘bars the relitigation of a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous litigation where the parties, the subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical as to issues actually litigated and as to those which could have or should have been raised in the previous litigation.’ ” Monarc Constr., Inc. v. Aris Corp., 188 Md.App. 377, 388 , 981 A.2d 822 (2009) (quoting R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648, 663 , 938 A.2d 839 (2008)) (emphasis omitted).

22010–2011
Kent County Board of Education v. Bilbrough green
md · 1987
2 sentences

2003Tn Kent County Bd. of Educ. v. Bilbrough, 309 Md. 487, 490 , 525 A.2d 232 (1987)(quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch.

2003Tn Kent County Bd. of Educ. v. Bilbrough, 309 Md. 487, 490 , 525 A.2d 232 (1987)(quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch.

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

CA 72 (1993–2026) WI 55 (1996–2026) TN 54 (1996–2025) OR 40 (1990–2024) OH 34 (1999–2026) MA 26 (1993–2025) CO 26 (1993–2025) AZ 21 (2006–2024) OK 19 (1994–2023) UT 18 (1994–2024) IA 17 (1983–2021) NM 17 (1994–2023) VT 16 (1989–2026) NV 14 (2007–2023) CT 13 (1994–2016) WA 13 (1995–2026) NY 11 (1978–2023) DC 10 (1989–2019) TX 10 (2001–2017) ID 10 (1985–2025) MD 9 (2003–2015) NE 8 (2017–2026) KS 7 (1988–2026) ME 7 (2001–2024) MT 6 (1999–2021) MS 6 (2001–2012) DE 6 (2012–2022) MO 5 (2006–2022) IN 5 (1986–2026) LA 4 (1995–2026) PA 4 (1998–2019) MI 3 (1998–2016) FL 3 (1993–2007) NJ 3 (1998–2017) NH 3 (2015–2020) AL 3 (1998–2008) IL 2 (1997–1997) VA 2 (2015–2015) AR 2 (1988–1994) KY 2 (2011–2022) AK 2 (2005–2025) NC 2 (2009–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check