Horning v. Hardy
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
373 A.2d 1273, 36 Md.App. 419 (1977)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Hornings (plaintiffs) were developing land and had a house ready for sale on the land. The Hardys (defendants) claimed in good faith that they owned the land and on the morning of the sale of the house, the Hardys’ attorney called and told the parties to the sale that the Hardys had filed suit claiming ownership in the property. The sale was aborted and never finalized as a result of this call. The Hornings brought a counterclaim against the Hardys for injurious falsehood. The trial court ruled that the Hardys could not establish ownership in the land. However, the trial court also concluded that the Hardys had a conditional privilege to bring their suit and that the Hornings could not recover for injurious falsehood. The Hornings appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liss, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.