Legal Opinion
Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided December 9, 1988No. 2, September Term, 1988PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*342R0D0WSKY, Judge.
“The doctrine usually called the parent-child immunity rule exists in Maryland.” Frye v. Frye, 305 Md. 542, 543, 505 A.2d 826, 827 (1986). The immunity includes actions sounding in negligence. Id. at 567, 505 A.2d at 839. In this negligence action an unemancipated infant sues the business partner of one of the infant’s parents and alleges negligence arising out of the conduct of the partnership business. The Court of Special Appeals extended parental immunity to the defendant. Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas, 73 Md.App. 271, 533 A.2d 1311 (1987). In so doing that court was…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Thompson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- James v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Rx Rel. SchrieferCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Mahnke v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Borst v. BorstWashington Supreme Court · 1952
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Lovelace v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Bushey v. Northern Assurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Allstate Insurance v. Kyong Ho KimCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.