6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Singletongreen2 sentences1999Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Singleton, 315 Md. 1, 6 , 553 A.2d 222, 224 (1989). 1999Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Singleton, 315 Md. 1, 6 , 553 A.2d 222, 224 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Matakieff v. Matakieffgreen2 sentences1978Wardrop v. Wardrop, 211 Md. 14, 19 , 124 A. 2d 576, 579 (1956); see Matakieff v. Matakieff, 246 Md. 23, 35-36 , 226 A. 2d 887, 893-94 (1967). 1978Wardrop v. Wardrop, 211 Md. 14, 19 , 124 A. 2d 576, 579 (1956); see Matakieff v. Matakieff, 246 Md. 23, 35-36 , 226 A. 2d 887, 893-94 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Wardrop v. Wardropgreen2 sentences1978Wardrop v. Wardrop, 211 Md. 14, 19 , 124 A. 2d 576, 579 (1956); see Matakieff v. Matakieff, 246 Md. 23, 35-36 , 226 A. 2d 887, 893-94 (1967). 1978Wardrop v. Wardrop, 211 Md. 14, 19 , 124 A. 2d 576, 579 (1956); see Matakieff v. Matakieff, 246 Md. 23, 35-36 , 226 A. 2d 887, 893-94 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. David
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 323 , 628 A.2d at 181 . 2011Id. at 323 , 628 A.2d at 181 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Thomasian v. Thomasian
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 196 , 556 A.2d 675 . 2010Id. at 196 , 556 A.2d 675 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Vogel v. Touhey
green
2 sentences2006Yet, despite the fact that [she] knew she had insufficient information as to an appropriate settlement with [her husband], she represented to the [court] that she was “fully aware of the issues” and that the settlement was “fair and equitable.” 151 Md.App. at 716 , 828 A.2d 268 (emphasis added). 2006Yet, despite the fact that [she] knew she had insufficient information as to an appropriate settlement with [her husband], she represented to the [court] that she was “fully aware of the issues” and that the settlement was “fair and equitable.” 151 Md.App. at 716 , 828 A.2d 268 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rutherford v. Katzenberger
green
2 sentences2000Citing Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347, 363 , 464 A.2d 228 (1983), Husband argues that, because he could have been held in contempt and thereby incarcerated for spiriting Radha away to India, due process requires that he have representation at the divorce hearing. 2000Citing Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347, 363 , 464 A.2d 228 (1983), Husband argues that, because he could have been held in contempt and thereby incarcerated for spiriting Radha away to India, due process requires that he have representation at the divorce hearing. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.