 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Katherine C., No. 32, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court exercising jurisdiction in a Child in Need of Assistance Case had authority to order a mother to pay child support to the government agency who had custody of her daughter pursuant to the child support guidelines set forth in Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 12-204 but the order was vacated since the mother did not receive proper notice.
|
|||||
| Sec'y, Dep't of Pub. Safety & Correctional Servs. v. Demby, No. 42, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment of 2002 to Md. Code Regs. 12.02.06.05, which caused an inmate to become ineligible for special project confinement credits if their sentences included a disqualifying offense, such as carjacking, murder, kidnapping, or arson, were adjudicated ex post facto since they had the effect of lengthening an inmate's sentence.
|
|||||
| Dennis v. Fire & Police Emples. Ret. Sys., No. 27, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deferred retirement option plan (DROP) retirement benefits from a city's fire and police retirement system were adjudged pension payments within the meaning of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders entered in two retirees' divorces, thereby entitling their former spouses to a portion of the DROP payments.
|
|||||
| Fox v. Wills, No. 43, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in dismissing a mother's legal malpractice action against an attorney that had been appointed her daughter's guardian pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202 in a divorce proceeding because the attorney was not entitled to any form of immunity with regard to such representation.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Whitehead, No. 17, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Maryland court gave great deference to a sister court's factual findings in an attorney's reciprocal discipline proceeding under Md. R. 16-773, but it found that the sanction imposed in the sister state of disbarment was not consistent with that imposed for similar conduct committed in Maryland; accordingly, a suspension was imposed.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Legum, No. 519, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by striking a foreign judgment from the State of Colorado that was a default money judgment filed by its holder against a decedent where the trial court failed to determined, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-801, whether the Colorado court had personal jurisdiction over the decedent when the judgment was obtained.
|
|||||
| MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., No. 2321, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in dismissing a plaintiff's suit brought under the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-3001 et seq., with regard to receiving 59 unsolicited emails in one month from the defendants since personal jurisdiction existed via the defendant targeting Maryland recipients.
|
|||||
| Meeks v. Dashiell, No. 638, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's ruling that client's legal malpractice action against attorney and law firm was barred by three-year limitations period for legal malpractice claims pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc. § 5-101 was error; genuine issue barring summary judgment existed about when client should have discovered problem with prenuptial agreement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
