Legal Opinion

Crossley v. Hartman

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 6, 1967No. [No. 713, September Term, 1966.]PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSingley, J.

This case comes before us on an agreed statement of facts, as permitted by Maryland Rule 828 g. 1 If the appellants’ brief contains a statement of facts which the appellees accept as accurate and sufficient, no evidence in appellants’ appendix and no record references are necessary. Naughton v. Paul Jones & Co., 190 Md. 599, 59 A. 2d 496 (1948).

For purposes of this opinion, we have adopted the agreed statements of facts:

That prior to May 1964, Emma S. Hartman, as surviving joint tenant, was the fee simple owner of a tract of land con taining about 0.41 acres on the South side of State Route…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Naughton v. Paul Jones & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
  2. Hoffman v. GosnellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1892
  3. Fuller v. J. B. Brewster & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1880
  4. Wicklein v. KiddCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
  5. Colonial Building & Loan Ass'n v. BodenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chen v. Bell-SmithDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
  2. Wilson Brothers v. CooeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. Iseli v. ClappCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  4. Chen v. Bell-SmithDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API