Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Ross

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 29, 2020No. 2374/18PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Anthony Martinez v. Daniel Ross, et al., No. 2374, Sept. Term 2018. Opinion by Arthur, J. NEGLIGENCE—PREMISES LIABILITY—RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE To encourage private landowners to make land available to the public for recreational and educational purposes, the General Assembly has enacted the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, codified at Maryland Code (1974, 2018 Repl. Vol.), §§ 5-1101 to 1109 of the Natural Resources Article. This statute achieves its stated purpose by limiting the owner’s liability in tort toward persons who enter on land for recreational and educational purposes. Id. §…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Lockshin v. SemskerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  2. Blackstone v. SharmaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018
  3. Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  4. Bramble v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  5. LePoidevin Ex Rel. Dye v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cameron Crogan v. Pine Bluff EstatesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2021
  2. Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan CenterCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2021
  3. DeVaughn v. Stonemor PartnersCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2026
  4. Gateway Terry v. Prince George's Cnty.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  5. Mayor & City Cncl of Balt. v. WallaceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2024

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API