omitting any lengthy recitation of various types of successors in interest and containing the additional phrase “who are or might be liable.” In our own case of Hodges v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 91 A.2d 473, 476 (D.C.1952), we were interpreting a Maryland release of the "Payer [released party] and all other persons, firms, and corporations, both known and unknown.” None of the other release forms appear to have contained the instruction in parentheses contained the Gordon release form. Thus, it is possible that a Maryland court would find the language of the release form before us not to be conclusive, despite its acknowledged strictness of approach. Cf. Stefan v. Chrysler Corp., 472 F.Supp. 262 (D.Md.1979), aff’d without published opinion, 622 F.2d 587 (4th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). 8 . We have applied this general principle in
recognizing rule recognizing strictness of maryland rule in a diversity case holding in the context of a diversity case that the evidentiary effect accorded the violation of a safety rule is a matter of state law holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate hospital that provided services to maryland residents and registered as a maryland provider designating itself as a liver transplant referral center holding that state law provides the standard of review for a denial of a rule 50 motion in a diversity case