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 1891–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ehrlich v. Grovegreen2 sentences2010In Maryland, the rules of discovery “were deliberately designed to be broad and comprehensive in scope.” Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 560 , 914 A.2d 783, 790 (2007). 2010In Maryland, the rules of discovery “were deliberately designed to be broad and comprehensive in scope.” Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 560 , 914 A.2d 783, 790 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery County Welfare Board v. Donnallygreen1 sentence1980Thus it was that the Court of Appeals could say in Montgomery Co., Etc. v. Donnally, 195 Md. 442, 446 (1950), “If a claim is filed against an estate being administered in the Orphans’ Court and the representative of that estate refuses payment, the Orphans’ Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and the claimant must institute suit on the claim against the personal representative in a court of law.” 4 If this is still the law, we might be in a curious position of having to dismiss the appeal for want of a final judgment rather than reversing an invalid order of the orphans’ court be | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. United States
green
1 sentence1978The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it.'" Id. 318 U. S. at 196-197 , 63 S. Ct. at 553 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences1978The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it.'" Id. 318 U. S. at 196-197 , 63 S. Ct. at 553 . 1978The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it.'" Id. 318 U. S. at 196-197 , 63 S. Ct. at 553 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Grunewald v. United States
green
2 sentences1978In Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391 , 77 S. Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957), the Court held that the assertion of the privilege before a grand jury was not inconsistent with later exculpatory testimony at the trial and, as a result, could not be used for impeachment. 1978In Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391 , 77 S. Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957), the Court held that the assertion of the privilege before a grand jury was not inconsistent with later exculpatory testimony at the trial and, as a result, could not be used for impeachment. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Dickson Construction & Repair Co. v. Beasley
green
1 sentence1928Co. v. Beasley, supra, it was held, in reference to a claim for an injury not resulting in death, that the delay in filing that claim was a fact to be considered at the time of the allowance of the claim for that injury, and that the defense of undue delay was “relevant only to the controversy at that stage and should be litigated then, if at all.” While the facts of this decision and the section construed are not like those at bar, yet the reasoning, when applied in the light of the statutory duty to give a liberal construction to the act, would indicate that, under appropriate circumstances, | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Brown v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1920The one ease cited by appellant to support, that proposition (Brown v. *154 Dist. of Columbia, 127 U. S. 579 ) does not go so far. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Bantz v. Bantz
green
1 sentence1913The rule stated in Bantz v. Bantz, supra, that the services must have been rendered with a design, at the time of the *303 rendition, to charge and an expectation on the part of the recipient to pay for the services, and must have been of such a character and rendered under such circumstances as to fairly imply an understanding of payment and a promise to pay, in order to justify the allowance of the claim against the decedent; applies, as this Court said in Bixler v. Sellman, 71 Md. 496 , “only when a claim of this character is made by a member of the family of the decedent, for of course it | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Davis v. Gemmell
green
1 sentence1891As nothing has been adduced to cause a modification of the opinion expressed in 70 Md., 356 , the result there announced must stand, and standing, it is an insuperable obstacle to the allowance of this claim. | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.