State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to consider the Legislature's post-petition modifications to statute and instead confining its analysis to the applicable statute as it existed prior to modification
• declining to consider the Legislature’s post-petition modifications to statute and instead confining its analysis to the applicable statute as it existed prior to modification
• reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata, because it “did not restrict Fidelity’s counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State’s] claims” as required by Reata
• reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata, because it “did not restrict Fidelity’s counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State’s] claims” as required by Reata
• reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata , because it \did not restrict Fidelity's counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State's] claims\ as required by Reata
• reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata , because it \did not restrict Fidelity's counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State's] claims\ as required by Reata

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).