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 2007–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc.green1 sentence2025Maryland courts have adopted Section 821D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which defines private nuisance as “a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use or enjoyment of land.” Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc., 218 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Prah v. Marettigreen1 sentence2007In Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis.2d 228 , 232, 321 N.W.2d 182, 187 (1982), that Court restated the concept that applies in Maryland as well: “The private nuisance doctrine has traditionally been employed ... to balance the conflicting rights of landowners....” 23 Private nuisances, moreover, are not a normal element of rights arising out of the issuance of building permits even when notice requirements exist, and private nuisances, if they exist, normally do so independently of the issuance of any public permits. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows
green
2 sentences2014For example, in Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 184 Or. 336 , 198 P.2d 847 (1948), an outdoor drive-in theatre filed a lawsuit against the race track adjacent to its property, alleging claims of trespass and nuisance based on the race track’s evening lighting. 2014For example, in Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 184 Or. 336 , 198 P.2d 847 (1948), an outdoor drive-in theatre filed a lawsuit against the race track adjacent to its property, alleging claims of trespass and nuisance based on the race track’s evening lighting. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Page v. NIAGARA CHEMICAL DIVISION, ETC.
green
2 sentences2025Finally, in Page v. Niagara Chemical Division of Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 68 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1953), the Supreme Court of Florida considered a private nuisance claim brought by railroad employees against the owner of an adjacent factory. 2025Id. at 383 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Short v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co.
green
1 sentence2011In Short v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Company, 50 Md. 73 (1878), we considered a private nuisance claim, such as that brought in the instant case, brought against a commercial railroad where, after clearing its tracks of snow, the railroad had allegedly created a large snow ridge that reportedly concentrated the flow of surface waters onto a nearby property. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Exxon Corp. v. Yarema
green
2 sentences2008Under Maryland law, to sustain a private nuisance claim “there must be a substantial interference with the plaintiffs reasonable use and enjoyment of its property.” Exxon Corp. v. Yarema, 69 Md.App. 124, 151 , 516 A.2d 990 (1986), cert. denied, 309 Md. 47 , 522 A.2d 392 (1987). 2008Under Maryland law, to sustain a private nuisance claim “there must be a substantial interference with the plaintiffs reasonable use and enjoyment of its property.” Exxon Corp. v. Yarema, 69 Md.App. 124, 151 , 516 A.2d 990 (1986), cert. denied, 309 Md. 47 , 522 A.2d 392 (1987). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.