7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zappone v. Liberty Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2016Zappone, 349 Md. at 64-66 , 706 A.2d at 1069-70 (hereinafter “the Zappone factors”). 2016Zappone, 349 Md. at 64-66 , 706 A.2d at 1069-70 (hereinafter “the Zappone factors”). | 3 | 4 |
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. C.I. Mitchell & Best Co.green2 sentences2019Mitchell and Best Co. , 303 Md. 544 , 577, 495 A.2d 30 (1985), the Court further explained its holding in Apostol , stating that, "once the taxes were paid, the refund remedy necessarily became exclusive because under the voluntary payment rule, the declaratory judgment and injunction remedies had been extinguished." See also Bowman v. Goad , 348 Md. 199 , 204, 703 A.2d 144 (1997) (stating that, in the context of refunds, "the General Assembly has now provided broad administrative refund remedies covering every type of tax, fee, or charge improperly collected by a Maryland governmental entity. 2019Mitchell and Best Co. , 303 Md. 544 , 577, 495 A.2d 30 (1985), the Court further explained its holding in Apostol , stating that, "once the taxes were paid, the refund remedy necessarily became exclusive because under the voluntary payment rule, the declaratory judgment and injunction remedies had been extinguished." See also Bowman v. Goad , 348 Md. 199 , 204, 703 A.2d 144 (1997) (stating that, in the context of refunds, "the General Assembly has now provided broad administrative refund remedies covering every type of tax, fee, or charge improperly collected by a Maryland governmental entity. | 2 | 3 |
Bowman v. Goadgreen2 sentences2019Mitchell and Best Co. , 303 Md. 544 , 577, 495 A.2d 30 (1985), the Court further explained its holding in Apostol , stating that, "once the taxes were paid, the refund remedy necessarily became exclusive because under the voluntary payment rule, the declaratory judgment and injunction remedies had been extinguished." See also Bowman v. Goad , 348 Md. 199 , 204, 703 A.2d 144 (1997) (stating that, in the context of refunds, "the General Assembly has now provided broad administrative refund remedies covering every type of tax, fee, or charge improperly collected by a Maryland governmental entity. 2019Mitchell and Best Co. , 303 Md. 544 , 577, 495 A.2d 30 (1985), the Court further explained its holding in Apostol , stating that, "once the taxes were paid, the refund remedy necessarily became exclusive because under the voluntary payment rule, the declaratory judgment and injunction remedies had been extinguished." See also Bowman v. Goad , 348 Md. 199 , 204, 703 A.2d 144 (1997) (stating that, in the context of refunds, "the General Assembly has now provided broad administrative refund remedies covering every type of tax, fee, or charge improperly collected by a Maryland governmental entity. | 2 | 3 |
Carter v. Huntington Title & Escrow, LLCgreen2 sentences2016See Carter, 420 Md. at 629 , 24 A.3d at 736 (noting that consideration of the remaining Zappone factors would support the Court’s conclusion that the allegations in Carter’s complaint were not “truly and fully independent common law claims,” in which the General Assembly has provided him “a special form of remedy! ]”); Zappone, 349 Md. at 65 , 706 A.2d at 1070 (acknowledging “that an agency’s interpretation of the statute which it administers” and its “interpretation that the remedy before the agency was not intended to be primary[,]” is entitled to weight) (citation omitted). c. 2016See Carter, 420 Md. at 629 , 24 A.3d at 736 (noting that consideration of the remaining Zappone factors would support the Court’s conclusion that the allegations in Carter’s complaint were not “truly and fully independent common law claims,” in which the General Assembly has provided him “a special form of remedy! ]”); Zappone, 349 Md. at 65 , 706 A.2d at 1070 (acknowledging “that an agency’s interpretation of the statute which it administers” and its “interpretation that the remedy before the agency was not intended to be primary[,]” is entitled to weight) (citation omitted). c. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell Atlantic of Maryland, Inc. v. Intercom Systems Corporation
green
2 sentences2009We then applied the Zappone analysis to the statutory scheme at issue in Bell Atlantic, which in Section 3-102(a) of the Public Utilities Article, Maryland Code (1998), stated that “[a]ny person may file a complaint with the Commission.” We concluded that the statutory scheme was not intended to be the exclusive remedy for consumers with complaints against public services companies, because the scheme was not “explicit in its language requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.” Bell Atlantic, 366 Md. at 25-26 , 782 A.2d at 805-06 . 2009We then applied the Zappone analysis to the statutory scheme at issue in Bell Atlantic, which in Section 3-102(a) of the Public Utilities Article, Maryland Code (1998), stated that “[a]ny person may file a complaint with the Commission.” We concluded that the statutory scheme was not intended to be the exclusive remedy for consumers with complaints against public services companies, because the scheme was not “explicit in its language requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.” Bell Atlantic, 366 Md. at 25-26 , 782 A.2d at 805-06 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.