7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. Tittsworthgreen2 sentences1998See Ford v. Tittsworth, 77 *254 Md.App. 770, 774, 551 A.2d 945 (1989). 1989See Ford v. Tittsworth, 77 Md.App. 770, 774, 551 A.2d 945 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herget v. Herget
green
2 sentences2017Herget Five years later, this Court in Herget v. Herget, 319 Md. 466 , 573 A.2d 798 (1990) strongly disapproved of the Court of Special Appeals’ reasoning behind the specificity requirement stated in Falise. 2017Herget Five years later, this Court in Herget v. Herget, 319 Md. 466 , 573 A.2d 798 (1990) strongly disapproved of the Court of Special Appeals’ reasoning behind the specificity requirement stated in Falise. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Warfield v. State
green
2 sentences1998Following this Court’s decision in Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 , 554 A.2d 1238 (1989), however, the Court of Special Appeals recognized the overruling of Ford in the following footnote: “As we had previously done in the criminal context, see Warfield v. State, 76 Md.App. 141 , 543 A.2d 885 (1988), we have held that, in civil cases, the ‘renewal’ of a motion for judgment after the withdrawal of the initial motion by the presentation of evidence does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 2-519(a). 1998Following this Court’s decision in Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 , 554 A.2d 1238 (1989), however, the Court of Special Appeals recognized the overruling of Ford in the following footnote: “As we had previously done in the criminal context, see Warfield v. State, 76 Md.App. 141 , 543 A.2d 885 (1988), we have held that, in civil cases, the ‘renewal’ of a motion for judgment after the withdrawal of the initial motion by the presentation of evidence does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 2-519(a). | 2 | 1989–1998 |
Bowers v. State
green
2 sentences2001Bowers, 283 Md. at 123 , 389 A.2d at 346 . 2001Bowers, 283 Md. at 123 , 389 A.2d at 346 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Warfield v. State
green
2 sentences1998Following this Court’s decision in Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 , 554 A.2d 1238 (1989), however, the Court of Special Appeals recognized the overruling of Ford in the following footnote: “As we had previously done in the criminal context, see Warfield v. State, 76 Md.App. 141 , 543 A.2d 885 (1988), we have held that, in civil cases, the ‘renewal’ of a motion for judgment after the withdrawal of the initial motion by the presentation of evidence does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 2-519(a). 1998Following this Court’s decision in Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 , 554 A.2d 1238 (1989), however, the Court of Special Appeals recognized the overruling of Ford in the following footnote: “As we had previously done in the criminal context, see Warfield v. State, 76 Md.App. 141 , 543 A.2d 885 (1988), we have held that, in civil cases, the ‘renewal’ of a motion for judgment after the withdrawal of the initial motion by the presentation of evidence does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 2-519(a). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ashman v. Commercial Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1982County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465 , 148 A.2d 786 (1959). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Allen v. Wilkinson
green
1 sentence1982Maryland Rule 345 b provides that "[a] demurrer shall. . . state in detail the question of law or insufficiency of substance upon which the demurrer is founded.” Along those lines we have held that, while there is no distinct test for the sufficiency of a demurrer, Allen v. Wilkinson, 250 Md. 395, 397 , 234 A.2d 515 (1968), a demurrer that alleges no more than that the declaration is "bad in substance and insufficient in law” is too general to meet the specificity requirement of Rule 345B and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 1 Balto. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp.
green
1 sentence1982County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 465 , 148 A.2d 786 (1959). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Thomas v. Hardisty
green
1 sentence1975Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., supra. Our interpretation (obtained with some-effort)-of the first and fourth grounds of the demurrer “contemplates .at least a reasonably understandable -statement”., Thomas v. Hardisty, 217 Md. 523, 529 , which .is -sufficient to comply with the Court of Appeals’ insistence upon the specificity requirement of Md. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.