7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meleski v. Pinero International Restaurant, Inc.green2 sentences2009Id. at 548 , 424 A.2d 784 (quotations omitted). 2009Id. at 548 , 424 A.2d 784 (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Nance v. Gallgreen2 sentences1982See also, Annot. 20 ALR 3d. 666 and later case service. [17] Any indications contrary to the apportionment rule just articulated which have been perceived in the addendum to Nance v. Gall, 187 Md. 656, 674-77 , 51 A.2d 535 , 535-36 (1946), are hereby disapproved. 1982Any indications contrary to the apportionment rule just articulated which have been perceived in the addendum to Nance v. Gall, 187 Md. 656, 674-77 , 51 A.2d 535 , 535-36 (1946), are hereby disapproved. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Earp's Appeal
green
2 sentences1914It is also sometimes designated as *8 the apportionment rule, and is thus stated in Smith’s Estate, 140 Pa. 344 : ‘It is well settled in this State that, when the stock of a corporation is by the will of a decedent given in trust, and the income thereof for the use of a beneficiary for life, with remainder over, the surplus dividends, which have accumulated in the life time of the testator but which are not divided until after his death, belong to the corpus of his estate, whilst the dividends of earnings made after his death are income, and payable to the life tenant no matter whether the div 1914This statement of the rule is the substance of the doctrine as laid down in Earp’s Appeal, 28 Pa. 368 , one of the earliest and leading cases on the subject in this country. | 2 | 1914–1914 |
Estate of Smith
green
2 sentences1914It is also sometimes designated as *8 the apportionment rule, and is thus stated in Smith’s Estate, 140 Pa. 344 : ‘It is well settled in this State that, when the stock of a corporation is by the will of a decedent given in trust, and the income thereof for the use of a beneficiary for life, with remainder over, the surplus dividends, which have accumulated in the life time of the testator but which are not divided until after his death, belong to the corpus of his estate, whilst the dividends of earnings made after his death are income, and payable to the life tenant no matter whether the div 1914It is also sometimes designated as the apportionment rule, and is thus stated in Smith’s Estate, 140 Pa. 344 : “It is well settled in this State that, when the stock of a corporation is by the will of a decedent given in trust, the income thereof for the use of a beneficiary for life, with remainder over, the surplus profits, which have accumulated in the lifetime of the testator, but which are not divided until after his death, belong’ to the corpus of his estate, whilst the dividends of earnings made after his death are income, and payable to the life tenant no matter whether the dividend be | 2 | 1914–1914 |
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2013Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 261 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989). 2013Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 261 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lucas v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
neutral
1 sentence1978Co., 29 Md. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Patuxent Oil Co. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County
green
1 sentence1978State Farm also stipulated to the contents of the policy it would have issued — which policy also contained an apportionment clause. 2 In spite of such stipulated concessions necessarily placing itself in the posture of a party in interest, State Farm contradictorily contends that: “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT UNDERTOOK TO DECIDE THE OBLIGATIONS *573 OF STATE FARM, ALTHOUGH THE PETITION SET FORTH NO CLAIM BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE DEFENDANT STATE FARM.” Contrary to appellant's assertions, this argument does not question that the controversy is justiciable in a declaratory judgment proceed | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Thomas v. Gregg
neutral
1 sentence1930In applying the apportionment rule to the disposition of a stock dividend in Thomas v. Gregg, supra, our predecessors said: “When it is possible for the court to ascertain to any certainty whether the distribution in the stock dividend includes net earnings, and, if so, what proportion, and also whether such earnings were intended to be made a part of the capital or merely to be used temporarily with the intention on the part of the directors of refunding them to the shareholders as income, we think it is the duty of the court to make such investigations and dispose of the stock in an equitabl | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.