Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in a proper case, it is within the trial judge’s discretion to grant such relief. We are not convinced, however, that the two lines of authority may not be reconciled on the basis of differences in local procedure or the types of interests threatened.... Grimm, supra, 252 Md. at 639, 250 A.2d 866. We, then, are tasked with addressing the “local procedures or the types of interests” that make a circumstance unusual and compelling so as to warrant issuing a declaratory judgment when an action involving similar issues is pending before another court. Id. When a litigant initiates a declaratory judgment under such circumstance, the trial court generally does not abuse its discretion by refusing to issue a declaration. Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm’s of Md., 400 Md. 1, 33, 926 A.2d 238 (2007) (<HOLDING>); accord Popham, supra, 333 Md. at 140 n. 2, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending (B) holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law (C) holding same under virtually identical circumstances (D) recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical (E) holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty
Output (English): holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty