 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| MedStar Health v. Md. Health Care Comm'n, No. 37, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment grant was proper to state health care commission on plan it promulgated permitting it to consider proposals for establishing new cardiac surgery programs where existing programs failed to meet certain standards; state health care commission was allowed to adopt such a plan pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Health-Gen. § 19-118(d)(2).
|
|||||
| Byndloss v. State, No. 54, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special appeals court's judgment upholding defendant's drug charge convictions arising out of traffic stop of vehicle in which he was a passenger was affirmed; his rights under Fourth Amendment and Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 26 were not violated, as stop was not unduly prolonged and officer involved diligently attempted to obtain information.
|
|||||
| State Bd. of Physicians v. Bernstein, No. 1594, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Maryland Board of Physicians based its decision to reprimand doctor under Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 14-404(a)(22) on both of its experts' testimony and where testimony of one of those experts was insufficient to prove that doctor breached standards of care, remand was required for Board to decide whether its decision remained same.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Calhoun, Misc. Docket AG No. 57, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from practice of law for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4, and Md. R. 16-609; among other things, attorney failed to communicate with client, attempted to charge interest and penalty fees not in representation agreement, and deposited settlement check into personal account.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Kapoor, Misc. Docket AG Nos. 3 & 9, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney, among other things, misappropriated client funds, forged client's signature on settlement check, and lied under oath, he was disbarred for violating former Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.5(c), 1.15(a), (b), 3.3(a), 5.5, 8.1(a), (b), 8.4(a), (b), (c), (d), Md. R. 16-604, and Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. §§ 10-304, -306.
|
|||||
| Holloman v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., No. 53, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee was properly ordered to arbitrate her sex discrimination claim against her employer because by signing an arbitration agreement, she waived her constitutional right to a jury trial, and the arbitration procedures did not infringe her substantive rights under Title VII; Md. Code Ann. art. 49B, § 16; or local discrimination statute.
|
|||||
| Rite Aid Corp. v. Levy-Gray, No. 61, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chain of pharmacies was properly held liable for breach of express warranty under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 2-313 based on insert directing consumer to take drug with food or milk if upset stomach occurred, because jury could have found insert's language was affirmation of fact constituting express warranty on which the consumer reasonably relied.
|
|||||
| Walton v. Mariner Health of Md., Inc., No. 33, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in entering a judgment against the agent for the resident's outstanding nursing home bill, as the agent and nursing home had no agreement to that effect and Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 19-344(c) did not provide the nursing home with a private cause of action against the agent for damages.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Holt, No. 12, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland after the hearing court found that he violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and (d), by possessing and using cocaine on more than one occasion, and took into account the fact that the attorney suffered a set back after his first attempt to recover from using drugs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
