Legal Opinion

Smelkinson SYSCO v. Harrell

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 2, 2005No. 2644, September Term, 2003PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAYMOND G. THIEME, JR., Judge, Retired, Specially Assigned.

Appellant Smelkinson SYSCO, Inc. (SYSCO), 1 asks us to enforce the stipulated damages provision of a Settlement Agreement and General Release that the company entered into with former employee James E. Harrell, appellee. The parties agreed, inter alia, that, if Harrell breached the agreement, SYSCO’s damages would include the $185,000 the company paid to settle pending and future disputes with Harrell. Challenging the trial court’s ruling that this clause is an unenforceable penalty for Harrell’s breach of that agreement, SYSCO raises…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Traylor v. GraftonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Abbott v. GatchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
  3. Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  4. Chernick v. ChernickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  5. Creamer v. HelferstayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ellis v. Kaye-KibbeyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008
  2. Richard F. Kline, Inc. v. Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  3. Willard Packaging Company, Inc. v. JavierCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  4. Hyundai Motor America v. AlleyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  5. Doe Mountain Enterprises, Inc. v. JaffeCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API