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 1959–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacques v. First National Bankgreen2 sentences2013See also Jacques v. First Nat’l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 531 , 515 A.2d 756 (1986) (stating that the elements in any cause of action for negligence are “a duty owed----, a breach of that duty, a legally cognizable causal relationship between the breach of duty and the harm suffered, and damages”). 2013See also Jacques v. First Nat’l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 531 , 515 A.2d 756 (1986) (stating that the elements in any cause of action for negligence are “a duty owed----, a breach of that duty, a legally cognizable causal relationship between the breach of duty and the harm suffered, and damages”). | 2 | 2 |
McNack v. Stategreen2 sentences2013“Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because ‘[t]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.’ ” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 19 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012) (quoting McNack v. State, 398 Md. 378, 395 , 920 A.2d 1097 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2013“Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because ‘[t]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.’ ” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 19 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012) (quoting McNack v. State, 398 Md. 378, 395 , 920 A.2d 1097 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2 |
Freedman v. Comcast Corp.green2 sentences2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md.App. 179, 206 , 988 A.2d 68 (2010) (analyzing prejudice as part of overall analysis of whether a party had waived the right to arbitrate); Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.App. 189, 200-02 , 964 A.2d 703 (2009) (same); Commonwealth Equity Servs., Inc. v. Messick, 152 Md.App. 381, 398 , 831 A.2d 1144 (2003) ("We need not decide ... whether delay, without a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, may support a finding of waiver ... because ... the court found that appellees had been prejudiced by appellants’ delay in seeking to compel arbitration.”); RTKL Ass 2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Palmergreen2 sentences2012See generally Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 198-99 , 9 A.3d 37, 45-46 (2010). 16 . 2012See generally Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 198-99 , 9 A.3d 37, 45-46 (2010). 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Countygreen2 sentences2012Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because “ftjhere can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.” Id., 920 A.2d at 1106 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘Duty’ in negligence has been defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447, 486 , 805 A.2d 372, 395 (2002) (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted) 2012Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because “ftjhere can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.” Id., 920 A.2d at 1106 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘Duty’ in negligence has been defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447, 486 , 805 A.2d 372, 395 (2002) (citation and some internal quotation marks 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abramson v. Wildman
green
2 sentences2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md.App. 179, 206 , 988 A.2d 68 (2010) (analyzing prejudice as part of overall analysis of whether a party had waived the right to arbitrate); Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.App. 189, 200-02 , 964 A.2d 703 (2009) (same); Commonwealth Equity Servs., Inc. v. Messick, 152 Md.App. 381, 398 , 831 A.2d 1144 (2003) ("We need not decide ... whether delay, without a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, may support a finding of waiver ... because ... the court found that appellees had been prejudiced by appellants’ delay in seeking to compel arbitration.”); RTKL Ass 2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md.App. 179, 206 , 988 A.2d 68 (2010) (analyzing prejudice as part of overall analysis of whether a party had waived the right to arbitrate); Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.App. 189, 200-02 , 964 A.2d 703 (2009) (same); Commonwealth Equity Servs., Inc. v. Messick, 152 Md.App. 381, 398 , 831 A.2d 1144 (2003) ("We need not decide ... whether delay, without a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, may support a finding of waiver ... because ... the court found that appellees had been prejudiced by appellants’ delay in seeking to compel arbitration.”); RTKL Ass | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc. v. Messick
green
2 sentences2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md.App. 179, 206 , 988 A.2d 68 (2010) (analyzing prejudice as part of overall analysis of whether a party had waived the right to arbitrate); Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.App. 189, 200-02 , 964 A.2d 703 (2009) (same); Commonwealth Equity Servs., Inc. v. Messick, 152 Md.App. 381, 398 , 831 A.2d 1144 (2003) ("We need not decide ... whether delay, without a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, may support a finding of waiver ... because ... the court found that appellees had been prejudiced by appellants’ delay in seeking to compel arbitration.”); RTKL Ass 2017See Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 190 Md.App. 179, 206 , 988 A.2d 68 (2010) (analyzing prejudice as part of overall analysis of whether a party had waived the right to arbitrate); Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.App. 189, 200-02 , 964 A.2d 703 (2009) (same); Commonwealth Equity Servs., Inc. v. Messick, 152 Md.App. 381, 398 , 831 A.2d 1144 (2003) ("We need not decide ... whether delay, without a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, may support a finding of waiver ... because ... the court found that appellees had been prejudiced by appellants’ delay in seeking to compel arbitration.”); RTKL Ass | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2013“Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because ‘[t]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.’ ” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 19 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012) (quoting McNack v. State, 398 Md. 378, 395 , 920 A.2d 1097 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2013“Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because ‘[t]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.’ ” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 19 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012) (quoting McNack v. State, 398 Md. 378, 395 , 920 A.2d 1097 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Horridge v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences2012In determining whether a duty exists, we have considered, among other factors, “ ‘the nature of the harm likely to result from a failure to exercise due care, and the relationship that exists between the parties.’ ” 5 Horridge, 382 Md. at 183 , 854 A.2d at 1239 (quoting Jacques v. First Nat’l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 534 , 515 A.2d 756, 759 (1986)). 2012In determining whether a duty exists, we have considered, among other factors, “ ‘the nature of the harm likely to result from a failure to exercise due care, and the relationship that exists between the parties.’ ” 5 Horridge, 382 Md. at 183 , 854 A.2d at 1239 (quoting Jacques v. First Nat’l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 534 , 515 A.2d 756, 759 (1986)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bates & Beharry v. State
green
2 sentences2007Every time that the opinion mentioned that an instruction to avoid inconsistency might be required, it meticulously (on ten separate occasions) appended the prerequisite requirement “if requested.” To the extent to which our opinion in Bates v. State, 127 Md.App. 678 , 736 A.2d 407 (1999), can be read to alter that preservation requirement, we disavow any such alteration. 2007Every time that the opinion mentioned that an instruction to avoid inconsistency might be required, it meticulously (on ten separate occasions) appended the prerequisite requirement “if requested.” To the extent to which our opinion in Bates v. State, 127 Md.App. 678 , 736 A.2d 407 (1999), can be read to alter that preservation requirement, we disavow any such alteration. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brown v. Dermer
green
2 sentences2003In Brown , we recognized that “foreseeability” was a prerequisite test for determining a landlord’s duty to correct a dangerous condition caused by lead paint in a leased premises. 357 Md. at 362 , 744 A.2d at 57 . 2003In Brown , we recognized that “foreseeability” was a prerequisite test for determining a landlord’s duty to correct a dangerous condition caused by lead paint in a leased premises. 357 Md. at 362 , 744 A.2d at 57 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States for the Use & Benefit of Davison v. York Electric Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1982Davison v. York Electric Construction Co., Inc., 184 F.Supp. 520 (D.N.D. 1960), a case involving the analogous Federal Miller Act that, despite appellant’s protestations, we find very close on point; also United States ex rel. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Bock
green
1 sentence1965Walton v. City of Roanoke (Va.), 133 S. E. 2d 315 ; Lee v. State (Kan.), 358 P. 2d 765 ; State v. Bock (Ida.), 328 P. 2d 1065 ; Prucha v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Neb.), 110 N. W. 2d 75 , Anno. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1965Walton v. City of Roanoke (Va.), 133 S. E. 2d 315 ; Lee v. State (Kan.), 358 P. 2d 765 ; State v. Bock (Ida.), 328 P. 2d 1065 ; Prucha v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Neb.), 110 N. W. 2d 75 , Anno. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Prucha v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence1965Walton v. City of Roanoke (Va.), 133 S. E. 2d 315 ; Lee v. State (Kan.), 358 P. 2d 765 ; State v. Bock (Ida.), 328 P. 2d 1065 ; Prucha v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Neb.), 110 N. W. 2d 75 , Anno. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Walton v. City of Roanoke
green
1 sentence1965Walton v. City of Roanoke (Va.), 133 S. E. 2d 315 ; Lee v. State (Kan.), 358 P. 2d 765 ; State v. Bock (Ida.), 328 P. 2d 1065 ; Prucha v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Neb.), 110 N. W. 2d 75 , Anno. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. D'ONOFRIO
green
1 sentence1959In State v. D’Onofrio, 221 Md. 20 , we held that the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act was procedural only and did not create new substantive rights not given before its passage by habeas corpus, coram nobis or other writs available at common law. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.