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 1997–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sturgis v. International Paper Co.green1 sentence1997See Sturgis v. International Paper Co., 525 So.2d 813, 815 (Miss.1988) (“[T]he credit is for the week, not for a number of dollars, and the excess cannot be carried over as a credit against other weeks of liability.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); General Elect. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Philip Electronics North America v. Wright
yellow
2 sentences2014In Philip Electronics, we held that the language of the Act as it then existed “clearly and unambiguously demonstrate[d] a legislative commitment to the payment of permanent partial disability benefits within a weekly framework.” 348 Md. at 218 , 703 A.2d at 154 . 2014In Philip Electronics, we held that the language of the Act as it then existed “clearly and unambiguously demonstrate[d] a legislative commitment to the payment of permanent partial disability benefits within a weekly framework.” 348 Md. at 218 , 703 A.2d at 154 . | 7 | 1999–2014 |
Ametek, Inc. v. O'Connor
green
2 sentences2007We iterated and confirmed its holding that the Legislature had “expressed a commitment to the payment of permanent partial disability benefits based on a weekly framework, rather than focusing upon the total monetary value of such an award” and concluded that “what we said in Philip Electronics applies with equal force to the case sub judice. ” Ametek v. O’Connor, supra, 364 Md. at 152 , 771 A.2d at 1077 , quoting from Philip Electronics, supra, 348 Md. at 221 , 703 A.2d at 155 . 2007We iterated and confirmed its holding that the Legislature had “expressed a commitment to the payment of permanent partial disability benefits based on a weekly framework, rather than focusing upon the total monetary value of such an award” and concluded that “what we said in Philip Electronics applies with equal force to the case sub judice. ” Ametek v. O’Connor, supra, 364 Md. at 152 , 771 A.2d at 1077 , quoting from Philip Electronics, supra, 348 Md. at 221 , 703 A.2d at 155 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.