Legal Opinion

Clagett v. Dacy

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 16, 1980No. 139, September Term, 1980PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilner, J.

Appellants were the high bidders at a foreclosure sale, but because the attorneys conducting the sale failed to follow the proper procedures, the sale was set aside. This occurred twice. Ultimately, the debtor discharged the loan, thus "redeeming” his land, and appellants lost the opportunity to acquire the property and make a profit on its resale. They sued the attorneys in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to recover their loss, alleging that the attorneys in question owed them, as bidders, a duty to use care and diligence and to conduct the sale "properly and carefully.” By…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Donald v. GarryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  5. Shillman v. HobstetterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Pelham v. GriesheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Flaherty v. WeinbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  3. Auric v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Krawczyk v. StingleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  5. Walpert, Smullian & Blumenthal, P.A. v. KatzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000

21 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