Arundel Corp. v. Marie

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• declining to adopt the “wait and see” approach to the Rule Against Perpe-tuities advocated by Restatement (Second) of Property, Donative Transfers § 1.4 (1977) because Maryland’s legislature had expressly spoken on the subject
• “If there is no ambiguity in [statutory] language ..., the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant.” (internal citations omitted)
• “Statutes declaratory of the common law are coextensive with the common law and no change in meaning is presumed to have been intended by their enactment.”
• “If there is no ambiguity ... the inquiry as to legislative intent ends; we do not then need to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of construction”
• “If there is no ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends[.]”
• “If there is no ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).