Legal Opinion
Kann v. Kann
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided March 11, 1997No. 22, Sept. Term, 1996PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
We hold today that allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, in and of themselves, do not give rise to an omnibus or generic cause of action at law that is assertable against all fiduciaries, including trustees of express trusts. Accordingly, here, where the beneficiary of an express trust sues the trustee, the claim is exclusively equitable and not triable of right before a jury.
The litigation arises out of the following facts. In August 1974 Frances 0. Kann (Frances) died, testate, leaving a portion of her estate to her then husband, Louis M. Kann, Jr. (Louis), and creating a…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Harris v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Adler v. American Standard Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Phipps v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
- Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- Alleco Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Joseph Allen, IV v. Brown Advisory, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2022
- Plank v. CherneskiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Beyer v. Morgan State UniversityCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- County Commissioners for Carroll County v. Forty West Builders, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.