Legal Opinion

Hixon v. Buchberger

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 1, 1986No. 77, September Term, 1985PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODOWSKY, Judge.

After the trial court held that his complaint failed to state a claim, the petitioner asked us to recognize as part of Maryland common law a cause of action for money damages based on intentional interference by a nonparental, noncustodial third party with the child visitation rights of a noncustodial parent. The intentional interference alleged here is primarily belligerent and hostile statements made to the petitioner, Jonathan D. Hixon (Hixon). We agree that his complaint does not state a damage claim. Our explanation follows.

Hixon’s visitation rights were judicially…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Harris v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  2. Kenneth G. Lloyd v. Irma Loeffler and Alvin F. LoefflerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  3. Thomas A. Bennett v. Patricia A. BennettCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
  4. Bartanus v. LisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. William Franz v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Carter v. CarterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. North v. NorthCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Kessel v. LeavittWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Bobo v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Fairbanks v. McCarterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993

10 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