6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurlandgreen1 sentence2022Tellingly, following the change in ownership at the level 16 Under the internal affairs doctrine, “the laws of the state of incorporation generally will govern matters involving the internal workings of a corporation except where, considering a set of common law factors annunciated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, a different state has the most significant relationship with the controversy.” Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, 397 Md. 37, 52 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Camhigreen1 sentence2007Resolution Trust Corp. v. Camhi, 861 F.Supp. 1121, 1126-27 (D.Conn.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Tomran, Inc. v. Passanogreen2 sentences2006See also Tomran, Inc. v. Passano, 159 Md.App. 706 , 862 A.2d 453 (2004) (relying upon the internal affairs doctrine in the absence of a contractual choice of law provision to conclude that the law of the country of incorporation controlled a shareholder’s derivative suit), aff'd, 391 Md. 1 , 891 A.2d 336 (2006). 2006See also Tomran, Inc. v. Passano, 159 Md.App. 706 , 862 A.2d 453 (2004) (relying upon the internal affairs doctrine in the absence of a contractual choice of law provision to conclude that the law of the country of incorporation controlled a shareholder’s derivative suit), aff'd, 391 Md. 1 , 891 A.2d 336 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities, Inc.green2 sentences2006See Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities Inc., 345 Md. 361, 370-71 , 692 A.2d 454, 459 (1997); N.A.A.C.P. v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 674, 679 A.2d 554 , 559 (1996); Stockley v. Thomas, 89 Md. 663 , 43 A. 766 (1899). 2006See Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities Inc., 345 Md. 361, 370-71 , 692 A.2d 454, 459 (1997); N.A.A.C.P. v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 674, 679 A.2d 554 , 559 (1996); Stockley v. Thomas, 89 Md. 663 , 43 A. 766 (1899). | 1 | 1 |
Tomran, Inc. v. Passanogreen2 sentences2006See also Tomran, Inc. v. Passano, 159 Md.App. 706 , 862 A.2d 453 (2004) (relying upon the internal affairs doctrine in the absence of a contractual choice of law provision to conclude that the law of the country of incorporation controlled a shareholder’s derivative suit), aff'd, 391 Md. 1 , 891 A.2d 336 (2006). 2006See also Tomran, Inc. v. Passano, 159 Md.App. 706 , 862 A.2d 453 (2004) (relying upon the internal affairs doctrine in the absence of a contractual choice of law provision to conclude that the law of the country of incorporation controlled a shareholder’s derivative suit), aff'd, 391 Md. 1 , 891 A.2d 336 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cubagreen2 sentences2004See First Nat’l City Bank v. Banca Para El Comercio, 462 U.S. 611, 621 , 103 S.Ct. 2591 , 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983); Edgar, 457 U.S. at 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 ; Koster v. Am. 2004See First Nat’l City Bank v. Banca Para El Comercio, 462 U.S. 611, 621 , 103 S.Ct. 2591 , 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983); Edgar, 457 U.S. at 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 ; Koster v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edgar v. Mite Corp.
green
2 sentences2009With regard to foreign corporations, Maryland courts have traditionally declined to interfere in management disputes under the “internal affairs doctrine.” As described by *713 the Supreme Court in Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 78 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982): the internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of law principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders — because otherwise a corporati 2009With regard to foreign corporations, Maryland courts have traditionally declined to interfere in management disputes under the “internal affairs doctrine.” As described by *713 the Supreme Court in Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 78 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982): the internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of law principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders — because otherwise a corporati | 4 | 2004–2009 |
NAACP ASS'N v. Golding
green
2 sentences2006In NAACP v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 679 A.2d 554 (1996), the Court of Appeals explained the “internal affairs doctrine” as follows: *78 “The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs-matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders-because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.” Id. at 673 , 679 A.2d 554 (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 2006In NAACP v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 679 A.2d 554 (1996), the Court of Appeals explained the “internal affairs doctrine” as follows: *78 “The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs-matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders-because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.” Id. at 673 , 679 A.2d 554 (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 | 3 | 2004–2006 |
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Everhart
green
1 sentence2006Citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Everhart, 37 F.3d 151 (4th Cir.1994), and the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 309 (1971), Storetrax asserts that the internal affairs doctrine is not absolute, but rather a presumption. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stockley v. Jacob Thomas & Son
green
2 sentences2006See Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities Inc., 345 Md. 361, 370-71 , 692 A.2d 454, 459 (1997); N.A.A.C.P. v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 674, 679 A.2d 554 , 559 (1996); Stockley v. Thomas, 89 Md. 663 , 43 A. 766 (1899). 2006See Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities Inc., 345 Md. 361, 370-71 , 692 A.2d 454, 459 (1997); N.A.A.C.P. v. Golding, 342 Md. 663 , 674, 679 A.2d 554 , 559 (1996); Stockley v. Thomas, 89 Md. 663 , 43 A. 766 (1899). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jones v. Prince George's County
green
2 sentences2004See Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 313 (stating that “[a] court will exercise jurisdiction over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation unless it is an inappropriate or an inconvenient forum for the trial of the action”); CJ § 6-104 (stating that, “[i]f a court finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions it considers just”); Jones v. Prince George’s County, 378 Md. 98, 120-21 , 835 A.2d 632 (2003) (citations omitted) (stating th 2004See Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 313 (stating that “[a] court will exercise jurisdiction over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation unless it is an inappropriate or an inconvenient forum for the trial of the action”); CJ § 6-104 (stating that, “[i]f a court finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions it considers just”); Jones v. Prince George’s County, 378 Md. 98, 120-21 , 835 A.2d 632 (2003) (citations omitted) (stating th | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.