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 1984–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kiriakos v. Phillips Dankos v. Stapfgreen2 sentences2018Given that six of the seven factors weighed in favor of imposing a duty, in Kiriakos , id. at 492 , 139 A.3d at 1037 , we concluded that the "seven-pronged test support[ed] our conclusion that a cognizable duty was adequately alleged." Similarly, in May v. Air & Liquid Sys. 2018Given that six of the seven factors weighed in favor of imposing a duty, in Kiriakos , id. at 492 , 139 A.3d at 1037 , we concluded that the "seven-pronged test support[ed] our conclusion that a cognizable duty was adequately alleged." Similarly, in May v. Air & Liquid Sys. | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2017FAMILY LAW — CUSTODY — THIRD-PARTIES — EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES The Court of Appeals held that the hearing judge erred in applying the seven factors contained in Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172, 191 , 372 A.2d 582, 593 (1977), to the facts in the case at bar and, therefore, abused his discretion in concluding that exceptional circumstances existed in this case. 2017FAMILY LAW — CUSTODY — THIRD-PARTIES — EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES The Court of Appeals held that the hearing judge erred in applying the seven factors contained in Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172, 191 , 372 A.2d 582, 593 (1977), to the facts in the case at bar and, therefore, abused his discretion in concluding that exceptional circumstances existed in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Jackson , the issue was not whether the State proved that the substance was a noncontrolled substance—indeed, the Jackson court did find that the State proved this element with laboratory analysis, Jackson, 165 S.W.3d at 469 ("A drug chemist from the crime lab testified that ... the other substance weighted 1.365 grams, but no controlled substances were detected in it.”)—but rather, whether the State proved that the defendant delivered or attempted to deliver the substance in question or any other of the seven factors required by the Arkansas statute. 2006Jackson, 165 S.W.3d at 470 . | 1 | 1 |
Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Companygreen1 sentence1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.red2 sentences1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). 1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Corp. , 446 Md. 1 , 5, 129 A.3d 984 , 986 (2015), this Court considered "whether a manufacturer can be liable for failing to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing replacement parts that it neither manufactured nor placed into the stream of commerce, but which were integral to the operation of its product." In determining whether a duty to warn, i.e. , a duty of care, existed, we analyzed the same seven factors as in Kiriakos , and concluded that a duty to warn existed under certain limited circumstances, explaining: As we have said, in negligence cases involving pers 2018Corp. , 446 Md. 1 , 5, 129 A.3d 984 , 986 (2015), this Court considered "whether a manufacturer can be liable for failing to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing replacement parts that it neither manufactured nor placed into the stream of commerce, but which were integral to the operation of its product." In determining whether a duty to warn, i.e. , a duty of care, existed, we analyzed the same seven factors as in Kiriakos , and concluded that a duty to warn existed under certain limited circumstances, explaining: As we have said, in negligence cases involving pers | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bland
green
2 sentences2009This case has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court of California, in People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 1107 (2002), which we will discuss, infra. It has also been overruled by People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 (1998). 7 . 2009This case has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court of California, in People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 1107 (2002), which we will discuss, infra. It has also been overruled by People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 (1998). 7 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Flood
green
2 sentences2009This case has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court of California, in People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 1107 (2002), which we will discuss, infra. It has also been overruled by People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 (1998). 7 . 2009This case has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court of California, in People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 1107 (2002), which we will discuss, infra. It has also been overruled by People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 (1998). 7 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003See Greenberg, supra, 41 Ariz. L.Rev. at 278 (citing John Money, Sex Errors of the Body and Related Syndromes: A Guide to Counseling Children, Adolescents and Their Families (2d ed. 1994)); In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan.App.2d 92 , 22 P.3d 1086 (2001) (citing Greenberg); Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., 164 Misc.2d 547 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995); *700 compare Corbett v. Corbett, [1970] 2 All E.R. 33, 2 W.L.R. 1306 (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Div. 1970) (stressing, for purposes of determining the validity of a marriage, only the chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors); Attorney G 2003See Greenberg, supra, 41 Ariz. L.Rev. at 278 (citing John Money, Sex Errors of the Body and Related Syndromes: A Guide to Counseling Children, Adolescents and Their Families (2d ed. 1994)); In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan.App.2d 92 , 22 P.3d 1086 (2001) (citing Greenberg); Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., 164 Misc.2d 547 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995); *700 compare Corbett v. Corbett, [1970] 2 All E.R. 33, 2 W.L.R. 1306 (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Div. 1970) (stressing, for purposes of determining the validity of a marriage, only the chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors); Attorney G | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re the Estate of Gardiner
green
2 sentences2003See Greenberg, supra, 41 Ariz. L.Rev. at 278 (citing John Money, Sex Errors of the Body and Related Syndromes: A Guide to Counseling Children, Adolescents and Their Families (2d ed. 1994)); In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan.App.2d 92 , 22 P.3d 1086 (2001) (citing Greenberg); Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., 164 Misc.2d 547 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995); *700 compare Corbett v. Corbett, [1970] 2 All E.R. 33, 2 W.L.R. 1306 (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Div. 1970) (stressing, for purposes of determining the validity of a marriage, only the chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors); Attorney G 2003See Greenberg, supra, 41 Ariz. L.Rev. at 278 (citing John Money, Sex Errors of the Body and Related Syndromes: A Guide to Counseling Children, Adolescents and Their Families (2d ed. 1994)); In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan.App.2d 92 , 22 P.3d 1086 (2001) (citing Greenberg); Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., 164 Misc.2d 547 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995); *700 compare Corbett v. Corbett, [1970] 2 All E.R. 33, 2 W.L.R. 1306 (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Div. 1970) (stressing, for purposes of determining the validity of a marriage, only the chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors); Attorney G | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1999Co., 62 Md.App. 101, 108 , 488 A.2d 516 . [15] In conducting this balancing, the Phipps Court suggested a consideration of the following seven factors: 1. 1999Co., 62 Md.App. 101, 108 , 488 A.2d 516 . [15] In conducting this balancing, the Phipps Court suggested a consideration of the following seven factors: 1. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Phipps v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1989Phipps, supra at 345 , 363 A.2d 955 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Roach v. Kononen
green
2 sentences1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). 1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
O'BRIEN v. Muskin Corp.
green
2 sentences1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). 1984See Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds 406 A.2d 140 (N.J.1979); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (N.J.1983); Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or. 457 , 525 P.2d 125 (1974). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.