 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christian v. State, No. 987, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his drug-related conviction because the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from between a screen door and the solid front door of defendant's residence as defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the space between those two doors.
|
|||||
| Kreter v. HealthSTAR Communs., Inc., No. 1849, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly held that the presumption against indemnification for negligence did not apply in a suit in which an indemnitee sought indemnification for fraudulent conduct because the parties understood the nature of the claims that might be asserted against the indemnitee and the parties' agreement contemplated application to a fraud claim.
|
|||||
| Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Chamberlin, No. 1574, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied the insurance company's motion seeking to compel the insured to return $ 20,000 that the insurance company advanced to her pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-511; while jury returned a verdict in an amount less than that, the insurance company bore that risk under the statute and was not entitled to any refund.
|
|||||
| Dougherty v. Rubenstein, No. 2570, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that testator had capacity, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 4-101, to make will in which he disinherited his son and that will was not product of insane delusion that son had stolen his money; delusion was based on son's other actions and was not one that could only have occurred as product of insane mind.
|
|||||
| Prince George's County v. FOP, Prince George's County, Lodge 89, No. 02660, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court determined that the appeal raised by a county in response to the arbitrator's decision that found the county had violated a collective bargaining agreement was moot, it also determined that the arbitrator's analysis of the CBA language was not completely irrational.
|
|||||
| Whittington v. Whittington, No. 32, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly awarded a wife indefinite alimony under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 11-106(c)(2) based on an alleged unconscionable disparity in the parties' income because any award of alimony, including indefinite alimony, was discretionary and the trial court did not exercise discretion; rather, it found that alimony was required.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, No. 2283, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a real estate seller wrongly received sale proceeds from which a mortgage lien on the property was not deducted, and a settlement services company reimbursed a title company for paying the amount of the lien to the mortgagee, summary judgment, under Md. R. 2-501(f), properly allowed the company to recover from the seller for unjust enrichment.
|
|||||
| Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. Skevofilax, No. 15, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse discretion in denying Md. R. 2-506(b) motion, as, inter alia, court found significant time and money was expended by both sides, there was no lack of diligence on part of respondents' local counsel, and respondents hardly could have been uncognizant of likelihood that summary judgment motions would follow expert's withdrawal.
|
|||||
| David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Thomas, No. 32, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of third-party property purchaser was reversed, as there was genuine dispute of material fact whether party to Unimproved Land Contract of Sale inserted, in bad faith, a "no mining" clause as a "poison pill" to discourage or frustrate the holder of a right of first refusal from exercising its right of first refusal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
