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 1990–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Odenton Development Company v. Lamygreen2 sentences2006To reach this decision, a court “must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’ ” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 30 , 108 S.Ct. at 2244 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 32 . 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 . 2006To reach this decision, a court “must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’ ” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 30 , 108 S.Ct. at 2244 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 32 . 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 . | 1 | 5 |
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.green2 sentences2006To reach this decision, a court “must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’ ” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 30 , 108 S.Ct. at 2244 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 32 . 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 . 2006To reach this decision, a court “must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’ ” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 30 , 108 S.Ct. at 2244 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 32 . 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 . | 1 | 3 |
Urquhart v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). 2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Officegreen1 sentence2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leung v. Nunes
green
2 sentences2005And, in making that determination, a court should consider “the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’ ” Id. 2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Wagner v. Wagner
green
2 sentences2006The Standard of Appellate Review In Wagner v. Wagner, 109 Md.App. 1, 52 , 674 A.2d 1 , cert. denied, 343 Md. 334 , 681 A.2d 69 (1996), Judge Cathell, writing for this Court, sounded the basic theme of appellate deference to the discretionary decision of the trial judge on whether to transfer an action. 2006The Standard of Appellate Review In Wagner v. Wagner, 109 Md.App. 1, 52 , 674 A.2d 1 , cert. denied, 343 Md. 334 , 681 A.2d 69 (1996), Judge Cathell, writing for this Court, sounded the basic theme of appellate deference to the discretionary decision of the trial judge on whether to transfer an action. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cobrand v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). 2005As the Cobrand Court explained, “to simply call it a balancing test and the ‘more convenient’ forum is in some regards ... misleading, because Odenton; Urquhart and *759 Leung make it clear that ‘a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.’” 10 Cobrand, supra, 149 Md.App. at 440, 816 A.2d 117 (citing Odenton, supra, 320 Md. at 40 , 575 A.2d 1235 ; Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 18, n. 7 , 660 A.2d 412 (1995); and Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217, 224 , 729 A.2d 956 (1999)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.