 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Juliano v. State, No. 2570, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution statute, Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 807, was constitutional; it was presumed to be valid, the statute did not eliminate the basic requirement that the State prove the victim's entitlement to a restitution award, and the State was required under the statute to introduce competent evidence to carry its burdens of production and persuasion.
|
|||||
| Neutron Prods. v. Dep't of the Env't, No. 00074, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assessment of an aggregate penalty, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 8-510(b), against the radiation licensee of $ 40,700 for 3,626 violations of radiation rules and regulations was neither error nor an abuse of discretion, as the state environmental agency was not required to assign a particular dollar amount to the individual violations.
|
|||||
| Goin v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., No. 923, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In slip and fall action, spoliation evidence of evidence was not applicable where there was no evidence employee who cleaned area where customer fell discarded perishable item removed from floor because employee was instructed to get rid of whatever they found on the floor or acted pursuant to company policy providing for retention of items.
|
|||||
| Hebron Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Whitelock, No. 2047, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the carnival attendee's personal injuries resulted in a permanent disability to his wrist and hand and where he was awarded $ 15,000 for past medical expenses and $ 525,000 in noneconomic damages, the trial court, after considering the evidence, did not abuse its discretion in reducing the noneconomic damages to $ 300,000.
|
|||||
| Chesapeake Bank v. Monro Muffler/Brake, Inc., No. 2288, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting tenant's petition for judgment of renewal of a lease agreement and for a declaratory judgment determining it had effectively exercised its option to extend its lease with the landlord; tenant's provision of late notice to extend the lease meant it was not entitled to relief under either contract law or in equity.
|
|||||
| Janey v. State, No. 0240, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse discretion by refusing to instruct jury on cross-racial identification. Decision whether to give such an instruction remained committed to discretion of trial judge; Court of Appeals' ruling that cross-racial identification is permissible subject of comment in closing argument did not impose obligation to give instruction.
|
|||||
| Mack v. State, No. 2181, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was upheld; although there was no question proffered newly discovered evidence was material to defendant's case, the additional evidence did not constitute newly discovered evidence because defendant failed to exercise due diligence in reporting command hallucinations to his counsel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
