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.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd.green2 sentences1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). 1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). | 1 | 3 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Concord Baptist Church, Inc.green2 sentences1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). 1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). | 1 | 3 |
Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Attorney Generalgreen1 sentence2018See 76 Opinions of the Attorney General 330 (1991) (describing various ways in which the Governor, Legislature, and Board of Public Works may eliminate appropriations in the State budget for State government positions). 14 The Majority opinion suggests that the Legislature could have resolved this dispute “simply, quickly, and cleanly” by filing a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the Governor’s exercise of his constitutional powers to make repeat recess appointments of Mr. Schrader and Ms. Peters instead of enacting §30. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Burning Tree Club, Inc.green2 sentences2002In State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., 301 Md. 9 , 481 A.2d *556 785 (1984), for example, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Attorney General of Maryland lacked the requisite standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of an enactment of the General Assembly. 2002Id. at 26, 37 , 481 A.2d 785 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pressman v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). 1984Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd., supra, 271 Md. at 5 [ 313 A.2d 829 ]; City of Baltimore v. Concord, supra, 257 Md. at 138 [ 262 A.2d 755 ]; Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78, 85 , 102 A.2d 821 (1954). | 3 | 1975–1984 |
Jackson v. Millstone
green
2 sentences2004“In addition, § 10-125 of the State Government Article specifically authorizes a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a state administrative regulation, and the statute in subsection (c) expressly provides that ‘[t]he unit that adopted the regulation shall be made a party to the proceeding.... ’ Even if sovereign immunity were otherwise a defense to this type of action (and, as shown by the above-cited cases, it is not a defense), § 10-125 would constitute a waiver of such immunity.” Jackson, 369 Md. at 590-91 , 801 A.2d at 1043 . 2004“In addition, § 10-125 of the State Government Article specifically authorizes a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a state administrative regulation, and the statute in subsection (c) expressly provides that ‘[t]he unit that adopted the regulation shall be made a party to the proceeding.... ’ Even if sovereign immunity were otherwise a defense to this type of action (and, as shown by the above-cited cases, it is not a defense), § 10-125 would constitute a waiver of such immunity.” Jackson, 369 Md. at 590-91 , 801 A.2d at 1043 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. Santos
green
2 sentences2000As to the Commission’s alleged failure to follow its own rule, the intermediate appellate court stated that its assumption of appellate jurisdiction “is grounded on our view of this issue as substantively analogous to a mandamus action or a declaratory action for violation of Beretta’s *177 due process rights.” Beretta USA v. Santos, supra, 122 Md.App. at 182 , 712 A.2d at 76 . 2000As to the Commission’s alleged failure to follow its own rule, the intermediate appellate court stated that its assumption of appellate jurisdiction “is grounded on our view of this issue as substantively analogous to a mandamus action or a declaratory action for violation of Beretta’s *177 due process rights.” Beretta USA v. Santos, supra, 122 Md.App. at 182 , 712 A.2d at 76 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.