Skip to main content

Rios v. Montgomery County

Citations

  • 872 A.2d 1
  • 386 Md. 104
  • 2005 Md. LEXIS 178

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that such immunity still obtains notwithstanding the enactment of the Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-304
  • reaffirming that “the LGTCA notice requirements are a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a local government or its employees”
  • reaffirming that \the LGTCA notice requirements are a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a local government or its employees\
  • noting that good cause can exist “where representations made by local government representatives are misleading”
  • upholding the 180-day notice provision in the Local Government Tort Claims Act, Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol., 2011 Supp.
  • “[C]raft[ing] an addendum to the LGTCA ... is the prerogative of the General Assembly.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Battaglia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Other cases named Rios v. Montgomery County

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.