valid basis claim (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

valid basis claim in Maryland

6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.green
md · 1983 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–2003
2 sentences

2003We have held, therefore, that the role of the court in deciding a motion to compel arbitration is limited to determining one question: “[I]s there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute?” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 103-04 , 468 A.2d at 95 (stating that “The Act strictly confines the' function of the court in suits to compel arbitration to the resolution of a single issue — is there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute”); Holmes , 336 Md. at 546 , 649 A.2d at 370-71 (“The scope of the court’s involvement extends only to a determinat

2003We have held, therefore, that the role of the court in deciding a motion to compel arbitration is limited to determining one question: “[I]s there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute?” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 103-04 , 468 A.2d at 95 (stating that “The Act strictly confines the' function of the court in suits to compel arbitration to the resolution of a single issue — is there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute”); Holmes , 336 Md. at 546 , 649 A.2d at 370-71 (“The scope of the court’s involvement extends only to a determinat

23
Abramson v. Wildmangreen
mdctspecapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 452 Md. 141, 150 (2017); see also Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.

11
Cain v. Midland Funding, LLCgreen
md · 2017 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 452 Md. 141, 150 (2017); see also Abramson v. Wildman, 184 Md.

11
Holmes v. Coverall North America, Inc.green
md · 1994 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003We have held, therefore, that the role of the court in deciding a motion to compel arbitration is limited to determining one question: “[I]s there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute?” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 103-04 , 468 A.2d at 95 (stating that “The Act strictly confines the' function of the court in suits to compel arbitration to the resolution of a single issue — is there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute”); Holmes , 336 Md. at 546 , 649 A.2d at 370-71 (“The scope of the court’s involvement extends only to a determinat

2003We have held, therefore, that the role of the court in deciding a motion to compel arbitration is limited to determining one question: “[I]s there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute?” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 103-04 , 468 A.2d at 95 (stating that “The Act strictly confines the' function of the court in suits to compel arbitration to the resolution of a single issue — is there an agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of a particular dispute”); Holmes , 336 Md. at 546 , 649 A.2d at 370-71 (“The scope of the court’s involvement extends only to a determinat

11
Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co. of Virginia, Inc.green
md · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Section 3-210, which we have interpreted as prohibiting “the court from inquiring into the merits of a claim,” Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 557 , 578 A.2d at 1189 , states: An order for arbitration shall not be refused or an arbitration proceeding stayed: (1) On the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides; or (2) Because a valid basis for the claim sought to be arbitrated has not been shown.

2003Section 3-210, which we have interpreted as prohibiting “the court from inquiring into the merits of a claim,” Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 557 , 578 A.2d at 1189 , states: An order for arbitration shall not be refused or an arbitration proceeding stayed: (1) On the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides; or (2) Because a valid basis for the claim sought to be arbitrated has not been shown.

11
Anne Arundel County v. Fraternal Order of Anne Arundel Detention Officers & Personnelgreen
md · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990See Anne Arundel County v. Fraternal Order of Anne Arundel Detention Officers and Personnel, 313 Md. 98, 105 , 543 A.2d 841, 845 (1988); Gold Coast Mall v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 103 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 (1983); Charles J.

1990See Anne Arundel County v. Fraternal Order of Anne Arundel Detention Officers and Personnel, 313 Md. 98, 105 , 543 A.2d 841, 845 (1988); Gold Coast Mall v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 103 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 (1983); Charles J.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2006The McDonough court held “that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. at 850 .

2006The McDonough court held “that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. at 850 .

21997–2006

Where else courts name it

IL 60 (1997–2026) GA 34 (1989–2024) KY 21 (1965–2025) WA 19 (1989–2024) MS 15 (1987–2020) VA 13 (1998–2026) TX 13 (1993–2024) UT 13 (1989–2019) OH 10 (2003–2024) MA 9 (1980–2025) IN 9 (1986–2020) ID 8 (1992–2025) CA 7 (1984–2022) VI 6 (1997–2014) MD 6 (1990–2019) DC 6 (1978–2016) FL 4 (1997–2021) NY 4 (1965–1996) AL 4 (1999–2025) VT 4 (1991–2017) DE 4 (1976–2026) WV 3 (2002–2026) ND 3 (1989–2017) NH 3 (1986–2024) NC 3 (1984–2004) OR 3 (2004–2023) WI 3 (1932–2020) ME 3 (1994–2022) WY 2 (2008–2011) SC 2 (2024–2024) NJ 2 (1994–1995) MI 2 (2008–2019) AR 2 (1989–1997) AZ 2 (2020–2023) NV 2 (2017–2017) HI 2 (2007–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check