 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albert S. v. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 02465, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court judgment was reversed as an administrative law judge erred by failing to make a Medical Assistance eligibility determination, based upon the testimony and evidence submitted at an evidentiary fair hearing, but instead remanded a case to a local agency for reconsideration due to additional medical evidence presented at the hearing.
|
|||||
| Skevofilax v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., No. 2526, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying the claimants' motion to dismiss their case without prejudice pursuant to Md. R. 2-506(b), as application of the four-factor test to determine whether such a voluntary dismissal motion should be granted and consideration of one claimant's status as a minor dictated that the motion should have been granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Pitt, No. 99, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were properly reversed; statements obtained pursuant to a plea agreement, which contained a provision that defendant's statements were admissible at trial if defendant breached the agreement, were inadmissible where the State repudiated the plea agreement after the State determined that defendant breached the agreement.
|
|||||
| Weston Builders & Developers, Inc. v. McBerry, LLC, No. 0013, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a specific performance suit involving real estate, lis pendens under Md. R. 12-102 did not automatically end with the entry of a judgment in favor of a seller since no procedural acts were undertaken to terminate it, thus, a third-party purchaser was vulnerable to any possible adverse decision flowing from the appeal brought by a buyer.
|
|||||
| In re Sophie S., No. 0203, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the trial court failed to find that the allegations of neglect had been sustained as to the mother pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-819(e) before granting custody to the father and dismissing the CINA petition, the judgment was vacated.
|
|||||
| Mayor & City Council v. Hart, No. 403, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim that trial court improperly instructed jury, where a police cruiser driven by a city police officer struck claimant's vehicle, by referring to a city police department general order about how officer should have operated the cruiser, was not preserved for review as required by Md. R. 2-520(e), as objection at trial was not specific enough.
|
|||||
| RAD Concepts, Inc. v. Wilks Precision Instrument Co., No. 478, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a corporation was found to have repudiated a contract with a manufacturer because of the corporation's failure to provide actual payment or assurances with respect to 5,000 x-ray cassette holders, the manufacturer was entitled to damages under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 2-709.
|
|||||
| Rau v. Collins, No. 653, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbor was not entitled to implied easement by necessity over driveway as, inter alia, neighbor conceded that there was no factual basis to support conclusion she should be granted easement over property, and facts and evidence reflected that neighbor purchased property with knowledge that there was no access to parking pad at rear of property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
