Legal Opinion · Dissent

Inlet Associates v. Harrison Inn Inlet, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 11, 1991No. 151, September Term, 1990Published

1DissentRobert M. Bell, Judge

In Zdravkovich v. Bell Atlantic-Tricon Leasing Corp., 323 Md. 200, 592 A.2d 498 (1991), Judge Chasanow, the author of the majority opinion, speaking for the Court, made several insightful comments concerning the application of Maryland Rule 1-341. Beginning the assessment of counsel fees discussion, he observed:

*272“Rule 1-341 can be an effective tool for the deterrence of unnecessary or abusive litigation. Unfortunately, like many tools, if improperly used or if abused, it is capable of inflicting excessive or unwarranted injury.”

Id., 323 Md. at 209, 592 A.2d at 503. Concluding that discussion,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  2. Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  3. Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.California Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Natural Design, Inc. v. Rouse Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  5. Wilbert J. Sheets, Cross-Appellant v. Yamaha Motors Corporation, U.S.A. And Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. Of Iwata, Japan, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990

19 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