Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 9, 2012No. 1804Published

1ConcurrenceWatts, J.

I concur, in part, with Judge Robert A. Zarnoch’s opinion and, in part, with Judge James R. Eyler’s opinion.

Property Value

As to the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict that all of appellees’ properties were worthless or could not be sold, I would affirm the jury’s award of property damages to those homeowners who “either explic*248itly or implicitly” testified that they believed their homes retained no market value for the reasons stated below.

I agree with Judge Zamoch’s assessment that twenty-six homeowners “either explicitly or implicitly” testified that…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1993
  2. William Barnes v. The American Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  3. Ayers v. Township of JacksonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
  4. Philip Morris Inc. v. AngelettiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  5. Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983

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