Legal Opinion

Cotham and Maldonado v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 2, 1971No. [No. 15, September Term, 1970.] [No. 266, September Term, 1970.]PublishedCited by 60 opinions

September Term, 1970.]

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

We are here called upon to decide the proper interpretation of what is now Code (1970 Cum. Supp.), Art. 57, § 18 relative to the notice required of claims against cer tain counties in a situation where the plaintiff’s declaration does not recite giving the notice within the statutory period, but says “upon discovery of the negligence of the Defendants [she] gave timely notice.” We are also obliged to construe the statute relative to its application to a third party claim. The facts are not in dispute.

Durley Cotham (Cotham), appellant in No. 15, was a patient in Prince George’s County General…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Vance v. VanceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Hahn v. ClaybrookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
  3. Neuenschwander v. Washington Suburban Sanitary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  4. Waldman v. RohrbaughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  5. Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & PriceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Attorney General v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  2. Condon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  3. Slate v. ZitomerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  4. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  5. People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980

55 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