 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abeokuto v. State, No. 129, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although totality of circumstances indicated defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived jury trial right, trial court's failure to engage in detailed colloquy to determine whether defendant, despite antipsychotic medications, retained capacity to knowingly and voluntarily waive jury sentencing right required vacation of sentences and resentencing.
|
|||||
| Bergmann v. Bd. of Regents, No. 0975, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment against the students in an action involving residency for instate tuition purposes was improper where the application of the university's instate tuition policy violated the students' equal protection rights under Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Wright, No. 128, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under a separation agreement, ex-wife could no longer claim any interest in the assets of parties' business. But, agreement did not specifically compel her to surrender her sub-ownership interest in a split-dollar endorsement to a life insurance policy to ex-husband, only her stock ownership of the business. Thus, his request for relief was denied.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Mayor & City Council, No. 2734, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the officer murdered the victim because he believed the victim was having an affair with the officer's wife, the officer, as a matter of law, was not acting in the scope of employment under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303(b). The officer was not acting pursuant to his duties as a police officer or in any way related to that position.
|
|||||
| Phoenix Servs. L.P. v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., No. 01050, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where contract between waste company and hospital provided that, after suspension of service, waste company was to obtain certificate of reasonable assurances by independent engineer in order to resume service, this did not foreclose court review of certificate, as contract did not state that certificate was final and binding.
|
|||||
| Goldberg v. Boone, No. 558, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a doctor, an ear, nose, and throat specialist, injured a patient during a type of surgery that the doctor had done once in three years, the patient could not maintain an informed consent claim against the doctor because the doctor did not have a duty to advise the patient that there were more experienced physicians in the locality.
|
|||||
| Mundey v. Erie Ins. Group, No. 2069, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly held that an injured party was not a resident under his parents' automobile policy as he was not a full-time student living away from home, but had been excluded from the family home for nearly a year. He had been denied permission to return, and his room had been converted to another use.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. Walzer, No. 2457, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court wrongly dismissed a patient's medical malpractice complaint against health care providers because language of Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04(b)(3) did not require dismissal if attesting expert's report was not filed with certificate of qualified expert or if the report was not otherwise filed within 90 days of the complaint.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
