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.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Christian v. Maternal-Fetal Med. Assoc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Christian v. Maternal-Fetal Med. Assoc. Anchor | green | “separately find that the acts committed in bad faith or without substantial justification warrant the assessment of attorney's fees.” | 6 |
| 2 | Starleper v. Hamilton | green | “a constructive trust is not a matter of right, ex debito justitiae, but rests in the discretion of the court, to be imposed or denied according to the circumstances of the case.” | 4 |
| 3 | McCormick v. Medtronic, Inc. | green | “although rule 2-305 generally requires that a complaint contain only 'a clear statement of the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action,' maryland courts have long required parties to plead fraud with particularity.” | 3 |
| 4 | Nationwide Prop. & Cas. v. Selective Way | green | “we review a circuit court's decision to award prejudgment interest under a de novo standard of review to determine whether it is legally correct.” | 3 |
| 5 | Powell v. Breslin | green | “the doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of a suit if (1) the parties in the present litigation are the same or in privity with the parties to the earlier action; (2) the claim in the current action is identical to the one determined in the prior adjudication; and…” | 3 |
| 6 | Brault Graham, LLC v. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C | green | “that, when a client discharges his or her lawyer, any contingency fee contract ceases to exist, and generally, absent contractual language to the contrary, any fee-splitting agreement predicated on the initial contingency fee contract also ceases to exist.” | 3 |
| 7 | Impac Mortgage Holdings v. Timm | green | “argument in support of a party's position on each issue” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.