Leppo v. State Highway Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the failure of the plaintiff to give notice within 180 days to one defendant did not bar the second defendant from indemnifying the other defendant
• interpreting a statutory notice requirement in the Maryland Tort Claims Act to be a condition precedent to institution of a third-party action against the State
• interpreting a statutory notice requirement in the Maryland Tort Claims Act to be a condition precedent to institution of a third-party action against the State
• interpreting a statutory notice requirement in the Maryland Tort Claims Act to be a condition precedent to institution of a third-party action against the State
• interpret ing a statutory notice requirement in the Maryland Tort Claims Act to be a condition precedent to institution of a third-party action against the State
• “ ‘Where a statute expressly provides for certain exclusions, others should not be inserted.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).