|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
State Courts -
Maryland - January 6 - January 12, 2006
|
| |
Armstrong v. Baltimore City, No. 30, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where circuit court dismissed neighbors' judicial review action relating to ordinance passed by Baltimore City, intermediate appellate court had jurisdiction under Md. Ann. Code art. 66B, § 2.09(e), as it permitted any final and appealable judgment of a circuit court to be appealed, whether or not circuit court had properly exercised jurisdiction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Stansbury v. MDR Dev., L.L.C., No. 38, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The trial court erred in finding that a property owner did not have an easement by necessity over part of a neighbor's land, as part of the owner's land was inaccessible except by crossing the neighbor's land, and since the land was originally deeded as such, it was reasonable to believe that such an easement was intended.
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re Kaleb K., No. 43, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because petitioner, a juvenile, did not cite to and discuss the applicability of Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-13(b) (2001) before the trial court, rather he argued Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-10 (2002), his argument based upon § 3-8A-13(b) was not properly preserved for appellate review under Md. R. 8-131(a).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Matoumba v. State, No. 47, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because under Md. R. 5-101(b)(12), the evidentiary rules were inapplicable to suppression hearings, a police officer did not have to be qualified as an expert witness at the suppression hearing before the court heard evidence as to the officer's basis for frisking defendant. Thus, evidence of a gun was properly admitted.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
