From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aman v. Javed

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 13, 2000
744 A.2d 47 (Md. 2000)

Summary

In Brown, 357 Md. at 367, 744 A.2d at 60, we held that petitioners' allegations that they had made a complaint to the landlords about the deteriorating condition of the paint and the respondents denying receiving the notice of the condition, was a genuine dispute of material fact and satisfied the "reason to know" test.

Summary of this case from Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Company

Opinion

No. 67, September Term, 1999.

January 13, 2000.

Adam Frank (Mir Law Associates, on brief), Rockville, for Petitioner.

No argument on behalf of Respondent.

Aruged before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, KARWACKI, ROBERT L. (retired, specially assigned), JJ.


ORDER


The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 13th day of January, 2000

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.


Summaries of

Aman v. Javed

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 13, 2000
744 A.2d 47 (Md. 2000)

In Brown, 357 Md. at 367, 744 A.2d at 60, we held that petitioners' allegations that they had made a complaint to the landlords about the deteriorating condition of the paint and the respondents denying receiving the notice of the condition, was a genuine dispute of material fact and satisfied the "reason to know" test.

Summary of this case from Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Company
Case details for

Aman v. Javed

Case Details

Full title:NASREEN AMAN v. NAJEEB JAVED

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jan 13, 2000

Citations

744 A.2d 47 (Md. 2000)
744 A.2d 47

Citing Cases

Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Company

Petitioners have presented two questions for our review: I. Is a landlord's knowledge of lead hazards in a…