Legal Opinion
Litman v. Holtzman
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided March 18, 1959No. [No. 168, September Term, 1958.]PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
An accountant, selected as a disinterested umpire, determined that a construction company was due some $15,000 by a couple for whom it had partially built a home. At the suit of the couple, the chancellor set aside the award, primarily, it would seem, because of his conviction that the parties should have selected an architect rather than an accountant to act as umpire.
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Holtzman agreed to purchase from Admiral Realty & Bldg. Co., Inc., a dwelling to be erected in Baltimore County at a price of some $57,000. When the house was partially completed, the Holtzmans ordered…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for WomenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. GammelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952
- Parr Construction Co. v. PomerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Eliot v. CoulterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Levine v. Wiss & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Mayor of Baltimore v. Allied Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Brzowski v. Maryland Home Improvement CommissionCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- City of Bowie v. Area Development Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Harmon v. SchwartzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.