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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.green2 sentences2002Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., supra, 224 Md. at 388-390 , 168 A.2d at 189 (“[T]here are no hard and fast rules to determine when the intent of the testator is general,” and the “absence of a gift over” or reversionary clause is simply “another indication of a general charitable intent”); Gallaudet University v. DAR, 117 Md.App. 171, 207-208 , 699 A.2d 531, 548-549 (1997). 2002Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., supra, 224 Md. at 388-390 , 168 A.2d at 189 (“[T]here are no hard and fast rules to determine when the intent of the testator is general,” and the “absence of a gift over” or reversionary clause is simply “another indication of a general charitable intent”); Gallaudet University v. DAR, 117 Md.App. 171, 207-208 , 699 A.2d 531, 548-549 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
Howard Savings Inst. of Newark v. Peepgreen2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2 |
Gordon v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences1997See Gordon v. Baltimore, 258 Md. at 702, 267 A.2d 98 . 1973Vol.) Art. 16, § 196; Gordon v. City of Baltimore, supra, 258 Md. at 702 , 267 A. 2d at 108-09 ; Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., supra, 224 Md. at 387 , 168 A. 2d at 188 ; see generally Casenote, The Cy Pres Doctrine Explored, 22 Md. | 1 | 2 |
Gallaudet University v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolutiongreen2 sentences2002Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., supra, 224 Md. at 388-390 , 168 A.2d at 189 (“[T]here are no hard and fast rules to determine when the intent of the testator is general,” and the “absence of a gift over” or reversionary clause is simply “another indication of a general charitable intent”); Gallaudet University v. DAR, 117 Md.App. 171, 207-208 , 699 A.2d 531, 548-549 (1997). 2002Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., supra, 224 Md. at 388-390 , 168 A.2d at 189 (“[T]here are no hard and fast rules to determine when the intent of the testator is general,” and the “absence of a gift over” or reversionary clause is simply “another indication of a general charitable intent”); Gallaudet University v. DAR, 117 Md.App. 171, 207-208 , 699 A.2d 531, 548-549 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Vanderhoofvengreen2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hughes Memorial Homegreen1 sentence2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 1 |
Weller v. Farmers Bank of the Stategreen1 sentence2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 1 |
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). 1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
In re Folsomgreen2 sentences1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). 1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Kostarides v. Central Trust Co.green2 sentences1997See also In re Tarrant’s Estate, 38 Cal.2d 42 , 237 P.2d 505, 506 (1951) (“A bequest intended as a charity is not void, ... if it can possibly be made good.”); Delaware Trust Co. v. Young, 33 Del.Ch. 357, 361 , 93 A.2d *198 496, 499 (1952) (holding that because will did not “indicate a general charitable purpose, the intended charitable trust must fail”); Kostarides v. Central Trust Co., 370 Mich. 690, 696-98 , 122 N.W.2d 729, 733 (1963). 1997See also In re Tarrant’s Estate, 38 Cal.2d 42 , 237 P.2d 505, 506 (1951) (“A bequest intended as a charity is not void, ... if it can possibly be made good.”); Delaware Trust Co. v. Young, 33 Del.Ch. 357, 361 , 93 A.2d *198 496, 499 (1952) (holding that because will did not “indicate a general charitable purpose, the intended charitable trust must fail”); Kostarides v. Central Trust Co., 370 Mich. 690, 696-98 , 122 N.W.2d 729, 733 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Tarrantgreen2 sentences1997See also In re Tarrant’s Estate, 38 Cal.2d 42 , 237 P.2d 505, 506 (1951) (“A bequest intended as a charity is not void, ... if it can possibly be made good.”); Delaware Trust Co. v. Young, 33 Del.Ch. 357, 361 , 93 A.2d *198 496, 499 (1952) (holding that because will did not “indicate a general charitable purpose, the intended charitable trust must fail”); Kostarides v. Central Trust Co., 370 Mich. 690, 696-98 , 122 N.W.2d 729, 733 (1963). 1997See also In re Tarrant’s Estate, 38 Cal.2d 42 , 237 P.2d 505, 506 (1951) (“A bequest intended as a charity is not void, ... if it can possibly be made good.”); Delaware Trust Co. v. Young, 33 Del.Ch. 357, 361 , 93 A.2d *198 496, 499 (1952) (holding that because will did not “indicate a general charitable purpose, the intended charitable trust must fail”); Kostarides v. Central Trust Co., 370 Mich. 690, 696-98 , 122 N.W.2d 729, 733 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Stockert v. Council on World Service & Finance of the Methodist Churchgreen2 sentences1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). 1997Inst. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494 , 170 A.2d 39, 42 (1961); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Arnold, 283 N.Y. 184 , 27 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1940); In re Folsom’s Will, 23 Misc.2d 817, 820 , 199 N.Y.S.2d 571, 574 (N.Y.Sur.1960) (“The contingency of an insufficiency of funds is covered by the cy pres doctrine”); Stockert v. Council on World Serv. & Fin. of Methodist Church, 189 W.Va. 1, 2 , 427 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dashiell v. Attorney General
green
2 sentences1961As was pointed out in Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 193 Md. 400 , 67 A. 2d 386 (1949), and again in Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom, 220 Md. 11 , 150 A. 2d 742 (1959), this situation was the result of the rejection by this Court of the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliz., ch. 4) in Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 (1822). 1912But the objections to this are: First, that wo have not here the technical charitable trust as defined by Mr. Justice Gray in Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 556 , and, second, that the Statute of 43d Elizabeth is not and never has been in force in the State of Maryland; Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 ; Halsey v. The Convention, 7 5 Md. 275 . | 2 | 1912–1961 |
Keyser v. Calvary Brethren Church
green
2 sentences2002University also argues that Keyser v. Calvary Brethren Church, supra, 192 Md. 520 , 64 A.2d 748 , although involving a charitable bequest, is similarly distinguishable because the will in that case was written prior to the adoption of the cy pres statute, and that, under Maryland cases, the cy pres statute has no application to wills written prior to its enactment. 2002University also argues that Keyser v. Calvary Brethren Church, supra, 192 Md. 520 , 64 A.2d 748 , although involving a charitable bequest, is similarly distinguishable because the will in that case was written prior to the adoption of the cy pres statute, and that, under Maryland cases, the cy pres statute has no application to wills written prior to its enactment. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Fleishman v. Bregel
green
2 sentences2002University Hospital argued that cases striking out illegal or impossible conditions in non-charitable trusts, such as Fleishman v. Bregel, supra, 174 Md. 87 , 197 A. 593 , were inapplicable to charitable trusts .because the latter were controlled by the Maryland Uniform Charitable Trusts Administration Act, known as the cy pres statute, Code (1974, 2001 Repl.Vol), § 14-302 of the Estates and Trusts Article. 2002University Hospital argued that cases striking out illegal or impossible conditions in non-charitable trusts, such as Fleishman v. Bregel, supra, 174 Md. 87 , 197 A. 593 , were inapplicable to charitable trusts .because the latter were controlled by the Maryland Uniform Charitable Trusts Administration Act, known as the cy pres statute, Code (1974, 2001 Repl.Vol), § 14-302 of the Estates and Trusts Article. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re the Estate of Sterne
green
2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re the Estate of Hawley
green
2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re the Accounting of United States Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wooten v. Fitz-Gerald
green
1 sentence2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, NA v. Buchanan
green
1 sentence2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bank of Delaware v. Buckson
green
1 sentence2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Trammell v. Elliott
green
2 sentences2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 2002“On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that where the restriction was illegal, the doctrine of cy pres was applicable, and that the trust should be carried on free of the restriction.” For cases applying the cy pres doctrine and declining to invoke the absolute rule advocated by University Hospital, some of which involve wills containing gifts over or reversionary clauses and some of which do not, see, e.g., Estate of Vanderhoofven, 18 Cal.App.3d 940, 946-948 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 260, 263-265 (1971); In re Will of Potter, 275 A.2d 574, 583 (Del.Ch.1970); Bank of Delaware v. Buckson, 2 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Delaware Trust Co. v. Young
neutral
1 sentence1997See also In re Tarrant’s Estate, 38 Cal.2d 42 , 237 P.2d 505, 506 (1951) (“A bequest intended as a charity is not void, ... if it can possibly be made good.”); Delaware Trust Co. v. Young, 33 Del.Ch. 357, 361 , 93 A.2d *198 496, 499 (1952) (holding that because will did not “indicate a general charitable purpose, the intended charitable trust must fail”); Kostarides v. Central Trust Co., 370 Mich. 690, 696-98 , 122 N.W.2d 729, 733 (1963). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1961As was pointed out in Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 193 Md. 400 , 67 A. 2d 386 (1949), and again in Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom, 220 Md. 11 , 150 A. 2d 742 (1959), this situation was the result of the rejection by this Court of the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliz., ch. 4) in Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 (1822). 1961As was pointed out in Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 193 Md. 400 , 67 A. 2d 386 (1949), and again in Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom, 220 Md. 11 , 150 A. 2d 742 (1959), this situation was the result of the rejection by this Court of the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliz., ch. 4) in Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 (1822). | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom
green
2 sentences1961As was pointed out in Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 193 Md. 400 , 67 A. 2d 386 (1949), and again in Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom, 220 Md. 11 , 150 A. 2d 742 (1959), this situation was the result of the rejection by this Court of the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliz., ch. 4) in Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 (1822). 1961As was pointed out in Fletcher v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 193 Md. 400 , 67 A. 2d 386 (1949), and again in Loats Female Orphan Asylum v. Essom, 220 Md. 11 , 150 A. 2d 742 (1959), this situation was the result of the rejection by this Court of the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliz., ch. 4) in Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 H. & J. 392 (1822). | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Reigart v. Fisher
green
1 sentence1933And while there is *415 no basis for valuing the White Hall property by the acre, nevertheless, under the cy pres rule followed in Reigart v. Fisher, 149 Md. 347 , 131 A. 568 , we can find no error in the allowance for the deficiency in acreage in that lot which could injure the appellant. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.