Legal Opinion
Associated Realty Co. v. Kimmelman
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Decided November 23, 1973No. 123, September Term, 1973PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The question in this case is whether or not the trial court properly granted a motion for summary judgment based upon the Statute of Limitations. We hold that it did.
On April 27, 1971, Associated Realty Company, the appellant, filed its declaration against two lawyers, David Kimmelman and Harvey A. Blum, appellees, alleging mishandling of a trial and appeal in the case of Associated Realty v. Cadillac Jack, 250 Md. 371, 243 A. 2d 543 (1968). The declaration contained two “Actions”. The “First Action” contained only one count which alleged that the two attorneys negligently handled the trial…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leonhart v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Fletcher v. FlournoyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1951
- Blocher v. HarlowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Watson v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Benson v. MaysCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Henley v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Baltimore Police Department v. CherkesCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Weisberg v. Williams, Connolly & CalifanoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- Estep v. Georgetown Leather DesignCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Rockstroh v. AH Robins Co., Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.