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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Nadelgreen2 sentences2022The Substitute Trustees cite Thomas, where the Supreme Court of Maryland stated that, in a foreclosure action, following a sale of the property, “the debtor’s later filing of exceptions to the sale may challenge only procedural irregularities at the sale or the debtor may challenge the statement of indebtedness by filing exceptions to the auditor’s statement of account.” 427 Md. at 444 . 2022Thomas v. Nadel, 427 Md. 441, 444 (2012) (citing Greenbriar Condo v. Brooks, 387 Md 683, 688 (2005) (explaining that, prior to the foreclosure sale, the debtor had the right to file a motion to enjoin the sale under Rule 14-209, but that after the sale went forward, an injunction was not permissible to overturn the sale, nor were exceptions to the sale filed 5 under Maryland Rule 14-304 appropriate to “upset retroactively a sale properly held”), superseded by Rule as stated in Thomas v. Nadel, 427 Md. 441 , 444 n.5 (2012)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenbriar Condominium v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2014“A debtor may challenge irregularities in the foreclosure sale’s procedure by filing post-sale exceptions at the time of the ratification and seek to overturn the sale on those bases.” Greenbriar Condominium, Phase I Council of Unit Owners, Inc. v. Brooks, 387 Md. 683, 746 , 878 A.2d 528 (2005). 2014“A debtor may challenge irregularities in the foreclosure sale’s procedure by filing post-sale exceptions at the time of the ratification and seek to overturn the sale on those bases.” Greenbriar Condominium, Phase I Council of Unit Owners, Inc. v. Brooks, 387 Md. 683, 746 , 878 A.2d 528 (2005). | 3 | 2010–2014 |
D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co.
green
1 sentence2020Overmyer, 405 U.S. at 176 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC
green
2 sentences2017That exception was enacted in 2011, in reaction to Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC , 412 Md. 308 , 987 A.2d 48 (2010). 2017That exception was enacted in 2011, in reaction to Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC , 412 Md. 308 , 987 A.2d 48 (2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fred Stein v. United Artists Corporation
green
1 sentence1992Stein v. United Artists [Corp.], 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir.1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Williams v. Salisbury Ice Co.
green
2 sentences1951The power to appoint a receiver should in all cases be exercised with great circumspection, Williams v. Ice Co., 176 Md. 13, 27 , 3 A. 2d 507 , as it may result in great and unnecessary loss and injury to the debtor. 1951The power to appoint a receiver should in all cases be exercised with great circumspection, Williams v. Ice Co., 176 Md. 13, 27 , 3 A. 2d 507 , as it may result in great and unnecessary loss and injury to the debtor. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.