Legal Opinion

Haynie v. National Gypsum Corp.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 10, 1985No. 1018, September Term, 1984PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALPERT, Judge.

“Catch 22” 1 may have carved a niche in the annals of contemporary American literature, but it shall not have a counterpart in contemporary Maryland civil litigation. Samuel B. Haynie had his “Catch 22.” Having filed a claim for Worker’s Compensation, he decided to file a common law tort action against his employer, but was told by the courts that he could not pursue that action because of his Worker’s Compensation claim. When he attempted to pursue his Worker’s Compensation claim thereafter, he was told that he could not proceed with that claim because of the common law tort…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. MacKall v. Zayre Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  2. Klein v. WhiteheadCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  3. Surratts Associates v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  4. Athas v. HillCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1983

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Haynie v. Gold Bond Building ProductsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  2. Stroup v. RenoSupreme Court of Iowa · 1995
  3. Anderson v. BimblichCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  4. Butler v. Glen Oak's Turf, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
  5. Wagner v. Allied Chemical Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1985

5 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