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 1988–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2017See Perry, 664 F.2d at 1215-16 (concluding that landlord-tenant law is an area in which states have great interest and involvement as necessary to the court’s determination of whether a party had met one of the factors in the test stated in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) for when a federal right of action exists under a federal statute); Forest City, 71 F.Supp.3d at 731-32 (concluding that state courts have jurisdiction over whether to evict a tenant as necessary to the court's holding that it would not exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim seeking | 1 | 1 |
Cort v. Ashred2 sentences2017See Perry, 664 F.2d at 1215-16 (concluding that landlord-tenant law is an area in which states have great interest and involvement as necessary to the court’s determination of whether a party had met one of the factors in the test stated in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) for when a federal right of action exists under a federal statute); Forest City, 71 F.Supp.3d at 731-32 (concluding that state courts have jurisdiction over whether to evict a tenant as necessary to the court's holding that it would not exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim seeking 2017See Perry, 664 F.2d at 1215-16 (concluding that landlord-tenant law is an area in which states have great interest and involvement as necessary to the court’s determination of whether a party had met one of the factors in the test stated in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) for when a federal right of action exists under a federal statute); Forest City, 71 F.Supp.3d at 731-32 (concluding that state courts have jurisdiction over whether to evict a tenant as necessary to the court's holding that it would not exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim seeking | 1 | 1 |
cluster 601800green1 sentence2012The factors in this test include: (1) the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability of the opposing party to pay the award of attorneys’ fees; (3) whether an award of attorneys’ fees would deter other persons; (4) “whether the parties requesting attorneys’ fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA itself’; and (5) the “relative merits of the parties’ positions.” Quesinberry, 987 F.2d at 1029. | 1 | 1 |
Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co. of Virginia, Inc.green2 sentences2006Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. at 427 , 875 A.2d at 182 ; see also Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 567 , 578 A.2d at 1193 (stating that the Court of Appeals is not bound by stipulations on matters of law.) A reviewing court will determine whether evidence in an affidavit is stale by applying a factors test to circumstances of the case before it, see, infra, Section III(C) (discussing stale probable cause). 2006Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. at 427 , 875 A.2d at 182 ; see also Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 567 , 578 A.2d at 1193 (stating that the Court of Appeals is not bound by stipulations on matters of law.) A reviewing court will determine whether evidence in an affidavit is stale by applying a factors test to circumstances of the case before it, see, infra, Section III(C) (discussing stale probable cause). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co.
green
2 sentences2017Johnson, 314 Md. at 526 , 552 A.2d at 31 . 2017Johnson, 314 Md. at 526 , 552 A.2d at 31 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
E.N. v. T.R.
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2018Indeed, in Wright , 349 Md. at 342 , 708 A.2d at 319 , and Booze , 334 Md. at 69 , 637 A.2d at 1217 , this Court noted that, in a criminal case, one of the factors in an analysis of whether the State improperly called a rebuttal witness is "whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis" to the rebuttal witness's testimony. 2018Indeed, in Wright , 349 Md. at 342 , 708 A.2d at 319 , and Booze , 334 Md. at 69 , 637 A.2d at 1217 , this Court noted that, in a criminal case, one of the factors in an analysis of whether the State improperly called a rebuttal witness is "whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis" to the rebuttal witness's testimony. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Booze
green
2 sentences2018Indeed, in Wright , 349 Md. at 342 , 708 A.2d at 319 , and Booze , 334 Md. at 69 , 637 A.2d at 1217 , this Court noted that, in a criminal case, one of the factors in an analysis of whether the State improperly called a rebuttal witness is "whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis" to the rebuttal witness's testimony. 2018Indeed, in Wright , 349 Md. at 342 , 708 A.2d at 319 , and Booze , 334 Md. at 69 , 637 A.2d at 1217 , this Court noted that, in a criminal case, one of the factors in an analysis of whether the State improperly called a rebuttal witness is "whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis" to the rebuttal witness's testimony. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass'n v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences2011Greenberg, Esq., [Mervis’s] lead trial counsel.” Although it was not required to “explicitly comment on or make findings with respect to” each factor in Rule 1.5(a) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, or, indeed, even mention the rule, see Monmouth, 416 Md. at 338 n. 11, 340 n. 13, 7 A.3d 1 , the court below expressly stated that the attorneys’ fees and costs requested would be denied if they did not “comport with Rule 1.5.” Applying the factors in that rule, the circuit court found that the attorneys’ fees and costs Mervis incurred in the second trial were “fair, reasonabl 2011Greenberg, Esq., [Mervis’s] lead trial counsel.” Although it was not required to “explicitly comment on or make findings with respect to” each factor in Rule 1.5(a) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, or, indeed, even mention the rule, see Monmouth, 416 Md. at 338 n. 11, 340 n. 13, 7 A.3d 1 , the court below expressly stated that the attorneys’ fees and costs requested would be denied if they did not “comport with Rule 1.5.” Applying the factors in that rule, the circuit court found that the attorneys’ fees and costs Mervis incurred in the second trial were “fair, reasonabl | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Greenstreet
green
2 sentences2006Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. at 427 , 875 A.2d at 182 ; see also Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 567 , 578 A.2d at 1193 (stating that the Court of Appeals is not bound by stipulations on matters of law.) A reviewing court will determine whether evidence in an affidavit is stale by applying a factors test to circumstances of the case before it, see, infra, Section III(C) (discussing stale probable cause). 2006Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. at 427 , 875 A.2d at 182 ; see also Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 567 , 578 A.2d at 1193 (stating that the Court of Appeals is not bound by stipulations on matters of law.) A reviewing court will determine whether evidence in an affidavit is stale by applying a factors test to circumstances of the case before it, see, infra, Section III(C) (discussing stale probable cause). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Camelback Ski Corp. v. Behning
yellow
2 sentences1988We stated, however, that those factors “cannot alone serve as the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction.” Camelback I, 307 Md. at 286 , 513 A.2d 874 . 1988We stated, however, that those factors “cannot alone serve as the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction.” Camelback I, 307 Md. at 286 , 513 A.2d 874 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.