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 1 courts 1942–1970 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mintzer v. Millergreen2 sentences1970Judge Barnes, for the Court, said: * * It is the defendant who claimed that there was a failure of his brakes, but he did not state and the evidence of the plaintiffs does not show that there was a proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning.” * [T] he Maryland law is that where the *8 owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 508, 509-10 . 1969It is the defendant *229 who claimed that there was a failure of his brakes, but he did not state and the evidence of the plaintiffs does not show that there was a proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning." 249 Md. at 508, 240 A.2d at 264 . | 1 | 2 |
Wood v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1968See Wood v. Johnson, 242 Md. 446 , 219 A. 2d 231 (1966) and Kline v. Kane, 246 Md. 19 , 226 A. 2d 894 (1967). 1968See Wood v. Johnson, 242 Md. 446 , 219 A. 2d 231 (1966) and Kline v. Kane, 246 Md. 19 , 226 A. 2d 894 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Kline v. KANE AND ART LITHO COMPANY, INC.green2 sentences1968See Wood v. Johnson, 242 Md. 446 , 219 A. 2d 231 (1966) and Kline v. Kane, 246 Md. 19 , 226 A. 2d 894 (1967). 1968See Wood v. Johnson, 242 Md. 446 , 219 A. 2d 231 (1966) and Kline v. Kane, 246 Md. 19 , 226 A. 2d 894 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Sothoron v. West
green
2 sentences1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. 1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. | 2 | 1949–1968 |
Lehmann v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. 1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Brehm v. Lorenz
green
2 sentences1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. 1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Kaplan v. Stein
green
2 sentences1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. 1968After reviewing Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539 , 26 A. 2d 16 (1942); Kaplan v. Stein, 198 Md. 414 , 84 A. 2d 81 (1951) as well as Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A. 2d 475 (1955) and Lehmann v. Johnson, 218 Md. 343 , 146 A. 2d 886 (1958), Judge Winter concluded, properly we think, that the Maryland law is that *510 where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing a rear-end collision depends on the grounds of defective brakes, the burden of showing proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning rests upon the defendant. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Currie v. United States
green
1 sentence1966Garfinkle v. Birnios, 232 Md. 402, 405 , approved instructions below which told the jury that the defendant owner of a car (whose responsibility to inspect and test is greater under Kaplan, supra, than that of one merely an operator who, under *455 Sothoron, supra, may test “by the simple pressure of a foot”) has the burden “as an affirmative defense” of showing proper inspection in a case of claimed sudden brake failure, and Currie v. United States, 312 F. 2d 1 , affirmed Judge Winter sitting in the District Court, 201 F. Supp. 414 , who found, in a rear end collision case, where the defense | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Mamie Currie, Magnolia Williams, and Irene T. Taylor v. United States
green
1 sentence1966Garfinkle v. Birnios, 232 Md. 402, 405 , approved instructions below which told the jury that the defendant owner of a car (whose responsibility to inspect and test is greater under Kaplan, supra, than that of one merely an operator who, under *455 Sothoron, supra, may test “by the simple pressure of a foot”) has the burden “as an affirmative defense” of showing proper inspection in a case of claimed sudden brake failure, and Currie v. United States, 312 F. 2d 1 , affirmed Judge Winter sitting in the District Court, 201 F. Supp. 414 , who found, in a rear end collision case, where the defense | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Garfinkle v. Birnios
green
1 sentence1966Garfinkle v. Birnios, 232 Md. 402, 405 , approved instructions below which told the jury that the defendant owner of a car (whose responsibility to inspect and test is greater under Kaplan, supra, than that of one merely an operator who, under *455 Sothoron, supra, may test “by the simple pressure of a foot”) has the burden “as an affirmative defense” of showing proper inspection in a case of claimed sudden brake failure, and Currie v. United States, 312 F. 2d 1 , affirmed Judge Winter sitting in the District Court, 201 F. Supp. 414 , who found, in a rear end collision case, where the defense | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Landry v. Hubert
green
1 sentence1942Lochmoeller v. Kiel, Mo. App., 137 S. W. 2d 625 ; Landry v. Hubert, 101 Vt. 111 , 411 A. 593 , 63 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.