Weems v. Nanticoke Homes, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even if a close relationship was contemplated between a party and its subcontractor, there was no evidence that the contractor intended to benefit the subcontractor when it contracted with the plaintiff that the plaintiff was to bear the burden of providing insurance
• “The Court of Appeals has recognized no such change in Maryland law [to accord with the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 133], and we would hesitate to recommend it in this case.”
• “The Court of Appeals has recognized no such change in Maryland law [to accord with the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 133], and we would hesitate to recommend it in this case.”
• “The Court of Appeals has recognized no such change in Maryland law [to accord with the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 133], and we would hesitate to recommend it in this case.”
• finding no intent to create a third-party beneficiary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).