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 2002–2022 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLPgreen2 sentences2022In so ruling, the court relied upon Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 733 F. Supp. 2d 635, 648 (D. 2022In so ruling, the court relied upon Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 733 F. Supp. 2d 635, 648 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environmentgreen2 sentences2015See Litz, 434 Md. at 649 , 76 A.3d 1076 (holding it was unclear from face of Litz’s complaint that her allegation of negligence was barred by the applicable statute of limitations). 2015See Litz, 434 Md. at 649 , 76 A.3d 1076 (holding it was unclear from face of Litz’s complaint that her allegation of negligence was barred by the applicable statute of limitations). | 1 | 1 |
Sternberger v. Kettler Bros.green2 sentences2015See Sternberger v. Kettler Bros., Inc., 123 Md.App. 303, 308 , 718 A.2d 619 (1998) (noting lower court’s explanation that once the appellee notified each home owner of a potential roof problem, the home owner had a duty to act with due diligence in determining whether they suffered injury under the MCPA) (citation omitted). 2015See Sternberger v. Kettler Bros., Inc., 123 Md.App. 303, 308 , 718 A.2d 619 (1998) (noting lower court’s explanation that once the appellee notified each home owner of a potential roof problem, the home owner had a duty to act with due diligence in determining whether they suffered injury under the MCPA) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Galola v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2022In Galola v. Snyder, a companion case to CitaraManis, we held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a tenant against an unlicensed landlord based on upon proof of voluntary payment of rent. 328 Md. 182 , 185–86 (1992). 2022In Galola v. Snyder, a companion case to CitaraManis, we held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a tenant against an unlicensed landlord based on upon proof of voluntary payment of rent. 328 Md. 182 , 185–86 (1992). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Citaramanis v. Hallowell
green
2 sentences2021We held that in order to prevail on a private MCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove “actual injury or loss.” Id. at 151 (quoting CL§ 13-408(a) and Golt, 308 Md. at 12 ). 2021We held that in order to prevail on a private MCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove “actual injury or loss.” Id. at 151 (quoting CL§ 13-408(a) and Golt, 308 Md. at 12 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Golt v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2021We held that in order to prevail on a private MCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove “actual injury or loss.” Id. at 151 (quoting CL§ 13-408(a) and Golt, 308 Md. at 12 ). 2021We examine these cases here, as well as our decision in Golt v. Phillips, 308 Md. 1 (1986) (our first case to discuss these issues), to determine whether our jurisprudence establishes a heightened pleading requirement for damages in the context of a private MCPA claim. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 140 . 2021Id. at 140 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Fontell v. Hassett
green
1 sentence2018In Fontell , 870 F.Supp.2d at 411 -14 , the United States District Court for the District of Maryland held that a HOA could not be held vicariously liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") when the HOA did not independently qualify as a debt collector under the statute. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Walton v. Network Solutions
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 675 , 110 A.3d 756 . 2018Id. at 675 , 110 A.3d 756 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving
green
2 sentences2004Thus, we affirm the jury’s verdict on the MCPA claim against Irwin and Wood. (ii) Hoffman Relying on Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519 , 667 A.2d 624 (1995), Hoffman argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he violated the MCPA because, as an appraiser, he did not offer consumer services, sell consumer realty, or extend consumer credit, all of which fall within the statute’s coverage. 2004Thus, we affirm the jury’s verdict on the MCPA claim against Irwin and Wood. (ii) Hoffman Relying on Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519 , 667 A.2d 624 (1995), Hoffman argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he violated the MCPA because, as an appraiser, he did not offer consumer services, sell consumer realty, or extend consumer credit, all of which fall within the statute’s coverage. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation
green
2 sentences2002As Judge Motz wrote: "[T]he actionable unfair or deceptive trade practices listed in the [MCPA] do not include monopolistic conduct or other violations of [MATA]." In re Microsoft, 127 F.Supp.2d at 724 n. 25. 2002As Judge Motz wrote: "[T]he actionable unfair or deceptive trade practices listed in the [MCPA] do not include monopolistic conduct or other violations of [MATA]." In re Microsoft, 127 F.Supp.2d at 724 n. 25. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.