7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Human Resources v. Cosbygreen2 sentences2012See Cosby, 200 Md.App. at 69-70 , 24 A.3d at 208-09 (reasoning that “the General Assembly has not ‘specified and plainly pronounced’ a derogation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel” in § 5-706.1 proceedings); Breslin, 421 Md. at 287 , 26 A.3d at 891 (noting that “[statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed, and it is not to be presumed that the [Legislature by creating statutory assaults intended to make any alteration in the common law other than what has been specified and plainly pronounced.” (quotation omitted)). 2012See Cosby, 200 Md.App. at 69-70 , 24 A.3d at 208-09 (reasoning that “the General Assembly has not ‘specified and plainly pronounced’ a derogation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel” in § 5-706.1 proceedings); Breslin, 421 Md. at 287 , 26 A.3d at 891 (noting that “[statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed, and it is not to be presumed that the [Legislature by creating statutory assaults intended to make any alteration in the common law other than what has been specified and plainly pronounced.” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Breslin v. Powellgreen2 sentences2012See Cosby, 200 Md.App. at 69-70 , 24 A.3d at 208-09 (reasoning that “the General Assembly has not ‘specified and plainly pronounced’ a derogation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel” in § 5-706.1 proceedings); Breslin, 421 Md. at 287 , 26 A.3d at 891 (noting that “[statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed, and it is not to be presumed that the [Legislature by creating statutory assaults intended to make any alteration in the common law other than what has been specified and plainly pronounced.” (quotation omitted)). 2012See Cosby, 200 Md.App. at 69-70 , 24 A.3d at 208-09 (reasoning that “the General Assembly has not ‘specified and plainly pronounced’ a derogation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel” in § 5-706.1 proceedings); Breslin, 421 Md. at 287 , 26 A.3d at 891 (noting that “[statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed, and it is not to be presumed that the [Legislature by creating statutory assaults intended to make any alteration in the common law other than what has been specified and plainly pronounced.” (quotation 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitehead v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017MCPS argues that, pursuant to the employment factors the Court of Appeals set out in Whitehead v. Safway Steel Products, Inc., 304 Md. 67 , 497 A.2d 803 (1985), Donlon is not an employee of the State. 2017MCPS argues that, pursuant to the employment factors the Court of Appeals set out in Whitehead v. Safway Steel Products, Inc., 304 Md. 67 , 497 A.2d 803 (1985), Donlon is not an employee of the State. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Richards
green
2 sentences2012Richards, 356 Md. at 367-68 , 739 A.2d at 64-65 . 2012Richards, 356 Md. at 367-68 , 739 A.2d at 64-65 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kohli v. LOOC, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Once a contested case has been delegated by an Agency to the OAH and then assigned to an ALJ for a hearing, the controlling procedural regimen is that which has been well described by Judge Harrell in Kohli v. LOOC, Inc., 103 Md.App. 694, 712 , 654 A.2d 922 (1995), reversed in part on other grounds, LOOC, Inc. v. Kohli, 347 Md. 258 , 701 A.2d 92 (1997). 2006Once a contested case has been delegated by an Agency to the OAH and then assigned to an ALJ for a hearing, the controlling procedural regimen is that which has been well described by Judge Harrell in Kohli v. LOOC, Inc., 103 Md.App. 694, 712 , 654 A.2d 922 (1995), reversed in part on other grounds, LOOC, Inc. v. Kohli, 347 Md. 258 , 701 A.2d 92 (1997). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Looc, Inc. v. Kohli
green
2 sentences2006Once a contested case has been delegated by an Agency to the OAH and then assigned to an ALJ for a hearing, the controlling procedural regimen is that which has been well described by Judge Harrell in Kohli v. LOOC, Inc., 103 Md.App. 694, 712 , 654 A.2d 922 (1995), reversed in part on other grounds, LOOC, Inc. v. Kohli, 347 Md. 258 , 701 A.2d 92 (1997). 2006Once a contested case has been delegated by an Agency to the OAH and then assigned to an ALJ for a hearing, the controlling procedural regimen is that which has been well described by Judge Harrell in Kohli v. LOOC, Inc., 103 Md.App. 694, 712 , 654 A.2d 922 (1995), reversed in part on other grounds, LOOC, Inc. v. Kohli, 347 Md. 258 , 701 A.2d 92 (1997). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Forman v. Motor Vehicle Administration
green
2 sentences2006Forman, 332 Md. at 209 , 630 A.2d at 757 . 2006Forman, 332 Md. at 209 , 630 A.2d at 757 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Anderson v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
green
2 sentences2005In Anderson v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 330 Md. 187 , 623 A.2d 198 (1993), the agency designee listened to a tape recording of the testimony that had been presented at the ALJ hearing. 2005In Anderson v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 330 Md. 187 , 623 A.2d 198 (1993), the agency designee listened to a tape recording of the testimony that had been presented at the ALJ hearing. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Snowden v. Mayor & CC of Baltimore
green
2 sentences2001Although they might each disagree with the final outcome, as the Court of Appeals said in Snowden v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 224 Md. 443, 448 , 168 A.2d 390 (1961), the test is “reasonableness not rightness”. 2001Although they might each disagree with the final outcome, as the Court of Appeals said in Snowden v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 224 Md. 443, 448 , 168 A.2d 390 (1961), the test is “reasonableness not rightness”. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.