 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bender v. Schwartz, No. 505, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of shareholder derivative action was affirmed; shareholders did not provide sufficient allegations in demand letter or complaint to alert committees to existence of claims, and they did not rebut presumption that investigations were reasonable and conclusions within realm of sound judgment, Md. Code Ann., Corp. & Ass'ns § 2-405.1(e).
|
|||||
| Dawson v. State, No. 2306, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was charged under former Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 35C, rather than Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-601, defendant could be ordered to register as sex offender. Defendant should have been permitted to withdraw guilty plea where motion was made prior to sentencing; trial court failed to recognize it could have exercised discretion.
|
|||||
| Gunby v. Olde Severna Park Improvement Ass'n, No. 1180 & 1248, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court erred by reversing the Maryland Department of the Environment's issuance of a tidal wetlands license to two lot owners because the circuit court incorrectly concluded that the license was improperly issued on the basis that the owners did not possess the riparian rights to the waterfront property adjoining their property.
|
|||||
| LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Reeves, No. 0268, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dispositive ruling for property owner and Indian tribe was error on bank's action seeking reformation of a deed of trust which inaccurately described property that secured deed; Indian tribe had been subsumed into Cherokee Nation and, thus, the Cherokee Nation was a necessary party to the bank's action, which made further proceedings necessary.
|
|||||
| People's Counsel for Balt. County v. Elm St. Dev., Inc., No. 9, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in affirming recommendation's of county's two agencies that development company's development plan for parcel of land complied with relevant zoning regulations without requiring agencies to lay out "facts and reasons" behind their recommendations; allegedly aggrieved parties did not show authority for any such requirement.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Iweanoge, Misc. Docket AG No. 67, September Term 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rodeheaver v. State, No. 2034, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a will provision (leaving a land parcel to the testator's friends, provided they, inter alia, continued to farm it; otherwise, the parcel passed to the State of Maryland) might have created a condition subsequent as to the testator's friends, it did not create such a condition with respect to the State upon its acceptance of the bequest.
|
|||||
| White v. Pines Cmty. Improvement Ass'n, No. 2652, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a property dispute, a trial court's judgment was revised since it was determined that a community development association was not the exclusive owner of the riparian rights at issue and was, therefore, prohibited from assessing maintenance fees for usage and access relating to piers in the development since the fees were punitive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
