92 Md. App. 137 - Markey v. Wolf’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Ass'n (2000), City of Bowie v. MIE, Properties, Inc. (2007)
2 district · 54 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Rodriguez v. New York · King v. Bankerd · Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. · Berkey v. Delia · Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In interpreting words used to create restrictions, the court should endeavor to ascertain the real purpose and intention of the parties and to discover the 'purpose from the surrounding circumstances at the time of the creation of the restriction, as well as from the words used. In endeavoring to arrive at the intention, the words used should be taken in their ordinary and popular sense, unless it plainly appears from the context that the parties intended to use them in a different sense, or that they have acquired a peculiar or special meaning in respect to the particular subject-matter.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In construing covenants, “[i]t is a cardinal principle ... that the court should be governed by the intention of the parties as it appears or is implied from the instrument itself.” The language of the instrument is properly “considered in connection with the object in view of the parties and the circumstances and conditions affecting the parties and the property____” This principle is consistent with the general law of contracts. If the meaning of the instrument is not clear from its terms, “the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument should be considered in arriving at the intention of the parties, and the apparent meaning and object of their stipulations should be gathered from all possible sources.” If an ambiguity is present, and if that ambiguity is not clearly resolved by resort to extrinsic evidence, the general rule in favor of the unrestricted use of property will prevail and the ambiguity in a restriction will be resolved against the party seeking its enforcement. The rule of strict construction should not be employed, however, to defeat a restrictive covenant that is clear on its face, or is clear when considered in light of the surrounding circumstances. The courts seem to have generally recognized that there is no public policy against a fair and reasonable construction, in the light of surrounding circumstances, of restrictions designed, in general, to accomplish the same beneficial purposes as zoning. The courts, it would seem, are under a du”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A later case, apparently recognizing the reasonableness modification of the strict construction rule, is the often-cited case of Turner v. Brocato, 206 Md. 336 , 111 A.2d 855 (1955). In that case, the Court said: "This rule of construction [that doubt must be resolved in favor of the alienability of land] bows always to the more fundamental rule that wherever possible effect will be given to an ascertained intention of the parties.” Id. at 352 , 111 A.2d 855 .... ... [T]he Court of Appeals ... recognized the "modern” or "reasonable” rule once again in its most recent case of Belleview Construction Co. v. Rugby Hall Community Association, 321 Md. 152 , 582 A.2d 493 (1990). The Court stated that it was a "cardinal principle” that the intentions of the parties appearing from, or implied by, the instrument controls when covenants are construed and that that language should be considered along with the objects of the parties and the other "circumstances and conditions affecting the parties and the property.” Id. at 157 , 582 A.2d 493 . The Court further said that: "The rule of strict construction should not be employed ... to defeat a restrictive covenant that is clear on its face, or is clear when considered in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 158, 582 A.2d 493 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.