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 1960–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Equitable Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2002It was merely “ ‘a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” ’ ” Id. at 525 , 740 A.2d at 1011 (quoting B & O.R.R. 77 Md.App. 320, 328 , 550 A.2d 407, 411 (1988) (quoting Mitchell Properties, 62 Md.App. at 482 , 490 A.2d at 276 )). 2002It was merely “ ‘a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” ’ ” Id. at 525 , 740 A.2d at 1011 (quoting B & O.R.R. 77 Md.App. 320, 328 , 550 A.2d 407, 411 (1988) (quoting Mitchell Properties, 62 Md.App. at 482 , 490 A.2d at 276 )). | 1 | 1 |
State Tax Commission v. Galesgreen2 sentences1984See State Tax Comm’n v. Gales, 222 Md. 543, 549 , 161 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1960) (holding that Art. 1984See State Tax Comm’n v. Gales, 222 Md. 543, 549 , 161 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1960) (holding that Art. | 1 | 1 |
National Can Corp. v. State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1960The Commission has called attention to a statement in the majority opinion in the National Can Corp. case, supra, 220 Md. at 425 (an opinion written by the author of the present opinion) that “[t]he power to classify property for purposes of taxation was conferred by the amendment to Article 15 * * * ratified November 2, 1915.” (This statement was, as the Commission points out, in accordance with one made in its brief in that case.) It made no practical difference in National Can whether the 1915 amendment to Article 15 conferred the above power to classify or removed a previously existing bar 1960The Commission has called attention to a statement in the majority opinion in the National Can Corp. case, supra, 220 Md. at 425 (an opinion written by the author of the present opinion) that "[t]he power to classify property for purposes of taxation was conferred by the amendment to Article 15 * * * ratified November 2, 1915." (This statement was, as the Commission points out, in accordance with one made in its brief in that case.) It made no practical difference in National Can whether the 1915 amendment to Article 15 conferred the above power to classify or removed a previously existing bar | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell Properties, Inc. v. Real Estate Title Co.
green
2 sentences2008In Mitchell Props., Inc. v. Real Estate Title Co., 62 Md.App. 473 , 490 A.2d 271 (1985), this Court said: A settlement agreement is a contract which the parties enter into for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance. 2008In Mitchell Props., Inc. v. Real Estate Title Co., 62 Md.App. 473 , 490 A.2d 271 (1985), this Court said: A settlement agreement is a contract which the parties enter into for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance. | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Clark v. Elza
green
2 sentences1986A settlement agreement is a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” 6 Corbin on Contracts, § 1278 at 124 (1962); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208 , 406 A.2d 922 (1979). 1986A settlement agreement is a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” 6 Corbin on Contracts, § 1278 at 124 (1962); Clark v. Elza, 286 Md. 208 , 406 A.2d 922 (1979). | 2 | 1985–1986 |
Jones v. Hubbard
green
2 sentences2002It was merely “ ‘a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” ’ ” Id. at 525 , 740 A.2d at 1011 (quoting B & O.R.R. 77 Md.App. 320, 328 , 550 A.2d 407, 411 (1988) (quoting Mitchell Properties, 62 Md.App. at 482 , 490 A.2d at 276 )). 2002It was merely “ ‘a contract which the parties enter into “for the settlement of a previously existing claim by a substituted performance.” ’ ” Id. at 525 , 740 A.2d at 1011 (quoting B & O.R.R. 77 Md.App. 320, 328 , 550 A.2d 407, 411 (1988) (quoting Mitchell Properties, 62 Md.App. at 482 , 490 A.2d at 276 )). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.