Skip to main content

Shader v. Hampton Improvement Ass'n

Citations

  • 443 Md. 148
  • 115 A.3d 185
  • 2015 Md. LEXIS 304

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting “[f]or the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply,” the reviewing court must scrutinize “facts necessary to resolve the pertinent issues [that] were adjudicated in that action[]”
  • noting “[f]or the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply,” the reviewing court must scrutinize “facts necessary to resolve the pertinent issues [that] were adjudicated in that action[]”
  • noting “[f]or the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply,” the reviewing court must scrutinize “facts necessary to resolve the pertinent issues [that] were adjudicated in that action[]”
  • noting “[f]or the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply,” the reviewing court must scrutinize “facts necessary to resolve the pertinent issues [that] were adjudicated in that action[]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Battaglia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Shader v. Hampton Improvement Ass'n

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.