useful rule in Maryland

2010Like federal caselaw, see Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490, 493 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884), Maryland follows the rule that when one claim is overturned in a multiple claim case with a general juiy verdict, an appellate court cannot possibly determine which part of the award was apportioned among the claims and a new trial must be ordered.

2010Like federal caselaw, see Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490, 493 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884), Maryland follows the rule that when one claim is overturned in a multiple claim case with a general juiy verdict, an appellate court cannot possibly determine which part of the award was apportioned among the claims and a new trial must be ordered.

2010Judge Wilner *571 further stated that he “would adhere generally to the contemporaneous objection rule, because it is a useful rule,” but “would bend it in this situation, however, because when rigidly applied, it fails to serve the ends of fairness or the search for truth.” Id. at 266 , 817 A.2d 241 (emphasis added).

2010Judge Wilner *571 further stated that he “would adhere generally to the contemporaneous objection rule, because it is a useful rule,” but “would bend it in this situation, however, because when rigidly applied, it fails to serve the ends of fairness or the search for truth.” Id. at 266 , 817 A.2d 241 (emphasis added).

2006Under the mechanics’ lien statute at issue in Barry Properties , “there [was] a ‘subsisting lien’ as soon as materials [were] supplied or work [was] performed, ... which constituted] a cloud on the property owner’s title____[Thus,] he no longer [had] unfettered title [and] his equity [was] diminished to the extent of the lien.” 277 Md. at 23-24 , 353 A.2d 222 .

2006Under the mechanics’ lien statute at issue in Barry Properties , “there [was] a ‘subsisting lien’ as soon as materials [were] supplied or work [was] performed, ... which constituted] a cloud on the property owner’s title____[Thus,] he no longer [had] unfettered title [and] his equity [was] diminished to the extent of the lien.” 277 Md. at 23-24 , 353 A.2d 222 .

2005See Murray; 180 Md. at 253 , 23 A.2d at 700 ; Admiral Rubber, 172 N.Y.S.2d at 954 (holding that dissolution should be granted only when the efficient management of the corporation is at risk and the “object of corporate existence unobtainable.”).

2005See Murray; 180 Md. at 253 , 23 A.2d at 700 ; Admiral Rubber, 172 N.Y.S.2d at 954 (holding that dissolution should be granted only when the efficient management of the corporation is at risk and the “object of corporate existence unobtainable.”).

1991Although we expressly do not adopt the theory of equitable tolling, we do find its enunciation in Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Company, 380 U.S. 424 , 85 S.Ct. 1050 , 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965) and Hosagai, supra to be a useful framework which points the way to achieve this holding.

1991Although we expressly do not adopt the theory of equitable tolling, we do find its enunciation in Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Company, 380 U.S. 424 , 85 S.Ct. 1050 , 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965) and Hosagai, supra to be a useful framework which points the way to achieve this holding.

1991See also Fox v. Eaton Corp., 615 F.2d 716, 719-20 (6th Cir.1980); Addison v. State, 578 P.2d 941 (Calif.1978).

1991Although we expressly do not adopt the theory of equitable tolling, we do find its enunciation in Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Company, 380 U.S. 424 , 85 S.Ct. 1050 , 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965) and Hosagai, supra to be a useful framework which points the way to achieve this holding.

1988As the court recognized in Cooper’s Adm’r v. Lebus’ Adm’rs, 262 Ky. 245 , 90 S.W.2d 33 (1935), whether an individual has an insurable interest in another also may be determined by examining the “ ‘loss or disadvantage [which] will naturally and probably arise, to the party in whose favor the policy is written, from the death of the person whose life is insured.’ ” Id. 90 S.W.2d at 36 , quoting, Adams’ Adm’r v. Reed, 18 Ky.L.

1988As the court recognized in Cooper’s Adm’r v. Lebus’ Adm’rs, 262 Ky. 245 , 90 S.W.2d 33 (1935), whether an individual has an insurable interest in another also may be determined by examining the “ ‘loss or disadvantage [which] will naturally and probably arise, to the party in whose favor the policy is written, from the death of the person whose life is insured.’ ” Id. 90 S.W.2d at 36 , quoting, Adams’ Adm’r v. Reed, 18 Ky.L.

1983Although the Maryland Court of Appeals has not, to date, expressly adopted the Bradley analysis (or even cited Bradley), still, since the basic doctrine applied there is precisely the same as that announced and applied in Janda and its predecessors, and because it makes eminently good sense, we think it is a relevant and useful standard by which to gauge our own State law.” 47 Md.

1983In Ray, supra at 1194-95 , the federal appeals court established a useful standard for evaluating the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion to order in camera review of documents.