Sasso v. Koehler

How courts have described this case

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

• “The point of the due diligence requirement is, that even in the presence of fraud, a party cannot abdicate all responsibility for protecting his rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cape v. Von Maur
  D. Maryland· 1996-07-26· cited 45×
• Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-10-04· cited 33×
• Douglass v. NTI-TSS, INC.
  D. Maryland· 2009-07-06· cited 9×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Leonhart v. Atkinson
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1972-04-04· cited 81×
• Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1969-07-11· cited 74×
• Feldman v. Granger
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1969-10-16· cited 58×
• Piper v. Jenkins
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1955-05-18· cited 55×
• Southern Maryland Oil Company v. Texas Company
  D. Maryland· 1962-03-30· cited 38×
• Weaver v. Leiman
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1880-01-28· cited 23×
• Jo Anne Atwell v. Retail Credit Company
  Fourth Circuit· 1970-09-30· cited 14×
• Insurance Co. of North America v. Parr
  Fourth Circuit· 1930-09-19· cited 9×