Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp.

8 Citing cases

  1. In re Terminals Unlimited, Inc.

    63 B.R. 419 (Bankr. D. Md. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Terminals Unlimited the issue presented was whether the issuance of a postpetition personal property tax bill meant that the claim was accorded an administrative expense priority, when the tax was due on July 1, 1985 and the petition was filed on September 5, 1985.

    In the context of taxation, the term `incurred' is clearly synonymous with `assessed', `levied', or `imposed'. In Baltimore County v. Xerox Corporation, 41 Md. App. 465, 397 A.2d 278, aff'd, 286 Md. 220, 406 A.2d 917 (1979) the Court of Special Appeals stated at 285, `While a taxpayer's obligation to pay his taxes is not suspended or postponed because of the pendency of a protest or an appeal, the personal property must be legally assessed and the tax legally billed before that obligation attaches.

  2. Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp.

    286 Md. 220 (Md. 1979)   Cited 16 times
    In Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp., 286 Md. 220, 226, 406 A.2d 917 (1979), the Court explained: "Without doubt the refund provisions... were enacted to modify the common law rule which established barriers to the recovery of taxes paid, presumably due originally to the reluctance of the sovereign to disgorge what had been given it."

    Bill of complaint by Xerox Corporation against Baltimore County seeking a declaratory judgment compelling Baltimore County to refund tangible personal property taxes and injunctive relief. From an order determining that Xerox Corporation was entitled to a refund of excess tax payments, Baltimore County appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed. Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md. App. 465, 397 A.2d 278 (1979). The Court granted Baltimore County's petition for a writ of certiorari.

  3. Payne v. Bernstein

    462 A.2d 15 (D.C. 1983)

    The awarding of court costs is "within the sound discretion of the trial court." Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md. App. 465, 477, 397 A.2d 278, 285, aff'd, 286 Md. 220, 406 A.2d 917 (1979). They are generally awarded as a part of the judgment to compensate the prevailing party for expenses in pursuing his claim.

  4. Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp

    285 Md. 727 (Md. 1979)

    Granted April 26, 1979 Pet. Docket No. 33 Petition granted April 26, 1979. Opinion of Court of Special Appeals reported: 41 Md. App. 465.

  5. Bonilla-Mead v. O'Sullivan

    No. 314-2022 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 27, 2022)

    . Baltimore Cnty. v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md.App. 465, 474 (1979). Thus, in the absence of a stay, the circuit court was not required to halt the foreclosure proceedings during the pendency of her appeal.

  6. Mattison v. Gelber

    202 Md. App. 44 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times
    In Mattison v. Gelber, 202 Md. App. 44, 52, 30 A.3d 1017 (2011), this Court explained that, in the context of Md. Rule 2-603, the term "cost" refers to "services performed by clerks for which costs are assessed and the amount to be collected by the clerk for those services" and to fees paid to sheriffs "for the service of various papers and for conducting execution and attachment sales."

    Relevant Commentary now is provided more by Committee Notes that have been approved by the Rules Committee and adopted by the Court of Appeals. equitable discretion of the court to award costs differently in law actions. See Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md.App. 465, 477, 397 A.2d 278 (1979). Under the pre–1957 approach, as described in the Editor's Note, an argument that the entitlement of the prevailing party to an allowance of costs was self-executing would have considerable merit, at least in cases at law.

  7. Human Relations v. Dept. of Parks

    166 Md. App. 33 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Holding the parties' settlement agreement was void and the subsequent consent judgment unenforceable and the parties had to be restored to their respective status quo positions before the date of the settlement agreement.

    Balt. County v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md.App. 465, 477, 397 A.2d 278, aff'd, 286 Md. 220, 406 A.2d 917 (1979). Although we might have allocated costs differently had we been sitting as the trial court, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering the Commission to pay the costs associated with pursuing the unsuccessful petition for contempt against the City. JUDGMENT REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, WITH DIRECTION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT REMAND TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID ONE-HALF BY APPELLANT, ONE-HALF BY APPELLEE.

  8. Crofton v. Anne Arundel County

    99 Md. App. 233 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that a corollary to the requirement that an appeal only lies from a final decision is the requirement that the aggrieved party "know . . . that the decision is final"

    The legislature has provided for a direct appeal from the denial of a claim for a tax refund to the Tax Court. Cf. Baltimore County v. Xerox Corp., 41 Md. App. 465, 471-72, 397 A.2d 278, aff'd, 286 Md. 220, 406 A.2d 917 (1979) (characterizing protest of tax assessment and request for a refund as "two separate and distinct administrative procedures"). Arguably, exhaustion of available administrative remedies in pursing a claim for a tax refund would be submitting the claim and having it determined by the appropriate tax collector.