Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Adams v. Manown

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 23, 1992No. 2, September Term, 1992Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChasanow, Judge

BELL, joins.

The majority in the instant case, in order to reach what it deems a proper result, takes action, which in kindness to my colleagues I will only characterize as unique and unprecedented.

The Court, after acknowledging that we granted certiorari to consider the issue of “whether the equitable defense of unclean hands applies to this action which, historically, is one at law,” goes on to decide the case on a totally different issue, i.e., “that the trustee in bankruptcy, and not the petitioner, is the real party in interest as plaintiff.” 328 Md. 463, 465-66, 615 A.2d 611, 612 (1992).…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. McKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Adams v. ManownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  3. Higgins v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  4. Truitt v. MillerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. William TARASI, George Sampas and Virginia R. Harrigan, Appellants, v. PITTSBURGH NATIONAL BANK and S. Robert MialkiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977

6 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