 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fields v. State, No. 751, September Term, 2005, No. 753, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendants and their trial counsel were completely unaware a jury note was submitted to trial court, defendants could not have made a knowing and intelligent waiver of their right to be present, right to provide input for the response, or right to be represented by counsel during that critical stage. Right to speedy trial was not violated.
|
|||||
| State v. Garnett, No. 1253, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant had been found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity under former Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 12-108(a) (2000), a sentence ordering her to pay restitution under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 11-603 (2004) was illegal and was properly vacated.
|
|||||
| In re Shawn P., No. 1059, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to find a juvenile waived counsel by not timely contacting the public defender, because the court did not comply with Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-20(b)(3) (2006) and Md. R. 11-106(b)(1), regarding the inquiry required before finding waiver, and counsel who represented the juvenile could not provide effective assistance.
|
|||||
| Reier v. State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation, No. 29, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a state employee was ordered reinstated to his position, his award of back pay was to include benefits. "Full back pay" in former Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. § 11-110(d)(1)(iii) encompassed state-offered benefits; it would be absurd to read the statute in the disjunctive as precluding benefits for wrongfully terminated employees.
|
|||||
| Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, No. 40, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly held that a former board member did not breach any fiduciary duty to a corporation by suing the corporation to enforce severance pay provisions of his employment contract, as the board member gave the corporation notice of the suit as required by Md. Code Ann., Corp. & Ass'ns § 2-419(a)-(b) (1976, 1999 Repl. Vol.).
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 51, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was lawfully detained when he knocked on door of suspected drug dealer's residence, where search pursuant to warrant was being conducted, at 1:00 a.m.; under Cotton v. State, police could detain defendant, though not occupant of premises, as it was not clear that he was unconnected with criminal activity or presented no potential danger.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Rogers, No. 69, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
