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 1966–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lane v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Lopata v. Miller
green
2 sentences2002Thus, we “review[] the same material from the record and decide[] the same legal issues as the [trial] court[.]” Lopata v. Miller, 122 Md.App. 76, 83 , 712 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 351 Md. 286 , 718 A.2d 234 (1998). *408 In granting Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court declared that “(1) [t]he coverage provided to Gail Hill for all claims asserted by Plaintiffs is limited to $20,000.00 under [the auto policy], and (2) [the umbrella policy] provides no coverage for Plaintiffs claims.” We review the legal soundness of these conclusions. 2002Thus, we “review[] the same material from the record and decide[] the same legal issues as the [trial] court[.]” Lopata v. Miller, 122 Md.App. 76, 83 , 712 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 351 Md. 286 , 718 A.2d 234 (1998). *408 In granting Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court declared that “(1) [t]he coverage provided to Gail Hill for all claims asserted by Plaintiffs is limited to $20,000.00 under [the auto policy], and (2) [the umbrella policy] provides no coverage for Plaintiffs claims.” We review the legal soundness of these conclusions. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Janelsins v. Button
green
2 sentences2001We reject that argument based on the holding in Janelsins, 102 Md.App. at 39 , 648 A.2d 1039 , which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeals in JBG/Twinbrook, 346 Md. at 621 , 697 A.2d 898 . 2001We reject that argument based on the holding in Janelsins, 102 Md.App. at 39 , 648 A.2d 1039 , which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeals in JBG/Twinbrook, 346 Md. at 621 , 697 A.2d 898 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
JBG/Twinbrook Metro Ltd. Partnership v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences2001We reject that argument based on the holding in Janelsins, 102 Md.App. at 39 , 648 A.2d 1039 , which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeals in JBG/Twinbrook, 346 Md. at 621 , 697 A.2d 898 . 2001We reject that argument based on the holding in Janelsins, 102 Md.App. at 39 , 648 A.2d 1039 , which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeals in JBG/Twinbrook, 346 Md. at 621 , 697 A.2d 898 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Harpy v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence1998In order to evade summary judgment for the insurer, Mr. Harpy filed an affidavit swearing “ ‘that I have never taken any action with regard to my daughter ... in which I intended or expected that she would suffer the type of injuries that she has alleged in her Complaint against me.’ ” Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Holloway v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
green
2 sentences1973Holloway v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 251 Md. 65, 66 , 246 A. 2d 265 (1968), and cases there cited. 1973Holloway v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 251 Md. 65, 66 , 246 A. 2d 265 (1968), and cases there cited. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Steinpreis v. Leet
green
2 sentences1966Cross motions for Summary Judgment were filed by the parties and after oral argument, Judge Shook filed an order granting Nationwide’s motion, citing the case of Steinpreis v. Leet, 240 Md. 212 , 213 A. 2d 555 (1965), as authority for the holding. 1966Cross motions for Summary Judgment were filed by the parties and after oral argument, Judge Shook filed an order granting Nationwide’s motion, citing the case of Steinpreis v. Leet, 240 Md. 212 , 213 A. 2d 555 (1965), as authority for the holding. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.