7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldrongreen2 sentences2019Attorney Gen. of Md. v. Waldron , 289 Md. 683 , 715, 426 A.2d 929 (1981). 2019Attorney Gen. of Md. v. Waldron , 289 Md. 683 , 715, 426 A.2d 929 (1981). | 1 | 2 |
Frankie L. Barber v. Whirlpool Corporationgreen1 sentence2010One theory that Longtin has advanced to “cut to the chase” on the notice of claim issues and to allow us to avoid his constitutional attack *122 on the LGTCA, is application of the "general verdict rule,” Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal.4th 1150 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 608 , 847 P.2d 574, 579 (1993), or the "two issue” rule, Barber v. Whirlpool Corp., 34 F.3d 1268, 1278 (4th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Tavaglione v. Billingsgreen2 sentences2010One theory that Longtin has advanced to “cut to the chase” on the notice of claim issues and to allow us to avoid his constitutional attack *122 on the LGTCA, is application of the "general verdict rule,” Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal.4th 1150 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 608 , 847 P.2d 574, 579 (1993), or the "two issue” rule, Barber v. Whirlpool Corp., 34 F.3d 1268, 1278 (4th Cir.1994). 2010One theory that Longtin has advanced to “cut to the chase” on the notice of claim issues and to allow us to avoid his constitutional attack *122 on the LGTCA, is application of the "general verdict rule,” Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal.4th 1150 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 608 , 847 P.2d 574, 579 (1993), or the "two issue” rule, Barber v. Whirlpool Corp., 34 F.3d 1268, 1278 (4th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences2008See also Harris v. Mayor and City Council of Bolt., 35 Md.App. 572, 584 , 371 A.2d 706, 712-13 (1977), where the Court of Special Appeals upheld an ordinance that used a formula to determine the number of allowable dwelling units within a zone with disparate results, finding that "[a] classification having some reasonable basis does not offend ... merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.” In that case, the analysis concerned an alleged violation of the federal Equal Protection clause. 2008See also Harris v. Mayor and City Council of Bolt., 35 Md.App. 572, 584 , 371 A.2d 706, 712-13 (1977), where the Court of Special Appeals upheld an ordinance that used a formula to determine the number of allowable dwelling units within a zone with disparate results, finding that "[a] classification having some reasonable basis does not offend ... merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.” In that case, the analysis concerned an alleged violation of the federal Equal Protection clause. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Bandemerred2 sentences1994See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 138-39 , 106 S.Ct. 2797, 2813 , 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986). 1994See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 138-39 , 106 S.Ct. 2797, 2813 , 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Nehring v. Russellgreen1 sentence1981No one should be surprised if a statute passes the one set of standards and not the other. [Johnson v. Hassett, 217 N.W.2d 771, 775-76 (N.D. 1974); see Nehring v. Russell, 582 P.2d 67, 76 (Wyo. 1978) (finding of constitutionality under the federal equal protection clause not restrictive of what State court may find under its own constitution even though both provisions may have the same overall end).] See generally, Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Hassettgreen1 sentence1981No one should be surprised if a statute passes the one set of standards and not the other. [Johnson v. Hassett, 217 N.W.2d 771, 775-76 (N.D. 1974); see Nehring v. Russell, 582 P.2d 67, 76 (Wyo. 1978) (finding of constitutionality under the federal equal protection clause not restrictive of what State court may find under its own constitution even though both provisions may have the same overall end).] See generally, Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor & Board of State Canvassers
green
2 sentences1983In Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 228 Md. 412 , 180 A.2d 656 (1962), the Court had before it an alleged malapportionment of the General Assembly challenged as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1983In Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 228 Md. 412 , 180 A.2d 656 (1962), the Court had before it an alleged malapportionment of the General Assembly challenged as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.