7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medex v. McCabegreen1 sentence2020We have held that: “A contract conflicting with public policy set forth in a statute is invalid to the extent of the conflict between the contract and that policy.” Medex v. McCabe, 372 Md. 28, 39 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Hawes Electric Co. v. Angellgreen2 sentences1990See Hawes Electric Co. v. Angeli, 332 Mass. 190 , 124 N.E.2d 257 (1955); Minardus v. Zapp, 112 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App.1938); First Texas Sav. 1990See Hawes Electric Co. v. Angeli, 332 Mass. 190 , 124 N.E.2d 257 (1955); Minardus v. Zapp, 112 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App.1938); First Texas Sav. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirschner v. Klavik
green
2 sentences1980The Court also quoted with approval from the case of Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227 (1962) where the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case denying a claim for architectural services by an unregistered architect, said: "'Generally, a contract made in violation of a Maryland statute designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights upon the wrongdoer. 1977Co., 132 Md. 283 , and quoting from Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A. 2d 227, 229 , a District of Columbia Municipal Appeals case: “Generally, a contract made in violation of a Maryland statute designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights upon the wrongdoer. | 3 | 1963–1980 |
National Glass, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Previously, the statute read, “[a]ny waiver provision of a contract made in violation of this section is void,” National Glass, 336 Md. at 614 , 650 A.2d at 250 , but was amended to state: “[a]ny provision of a contract made in violation of this section is void as against the public policy of this State.” Id. 2015Previously, the statute read, “[a]ny waiver provision of a contract made in violation of this section is void,” National Glass, 336 Md. at 614 , 650 A.2d at 250 , but was amended to state: “[a]ny provision of a contract made in violation of this section is void as against the public policy of this State.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Minardus v. Zapp
green
1 sentence1990See Hawes Electric Co. v. Angeli, 332 Mass. 190 , 124 N.E.2d 257 (1955); Minardus v. Zapp, 112 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App.1938); First Texas Sav. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Goldsmith v. Manufacturers' Liability Insurance
green
1 sentence1977Co., 132 Md. 283 , and quoting from Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A. 2d 227, 229 , a District of Columbia Municipal Appeals case: “Generally, a contract made in violation of a Maryland statute designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights upon the wrongdoer. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Eschbach
green
1 sentence1916In the case of Baltimore v. Eschbach, 18 Md. 276 , an action was brought to recover damages for default of the defendants in imposing a valid tax for work done under a contract made by the plaintiff with the City Commissioner for grading and paving one of the City streets. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.