Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Court of Appeals of Maryland· 11/8/2002

Goldberg v. Miller

Citations

  • 810 A.2d 947
  • 371 Md. 591
  • 2002 Md. LEXIS 864

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating the maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “should be used with caution and not as a rule of law.”
  • explaining that when a legislative body “included particular language in one section of a statute, but omitted it in another section of the same act, it could be presumed that [the legislature] acted intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion”
  • explaining that when a legislative body “included particular language in one section of a statute, but omitted it in another section of the same act, it could be presumed that [the legislature] acted intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion”
  • “a default judgment is not subject to the revisory power under 2-535(a), except as to the relief granted.”
  • “This Court has long recognized the parents’ obligation to support their minor children. This obligation imposes a duty on the parent to provide support and confers a right on children to receive it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Goldberg v. Miller

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.