 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., No. 502, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County planning board's approval of a preliminary plan for a subdivision was affirmed because the planning board validly granted reconsideration on the basis that its decision did not conform to relevant law, and reversed its previous decision on the same basis. There was also no error or abuse of discretion by the planning board in its decision.
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. State, No. 92, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution order was affirmed because restitution was a permissible penalty for possessing for distribution or delivery counterfeit CDs and DVDs under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 11-603. Defendant also waived his challenge to the restitution order because he agreed to the amount and the recipient of the restitution.
|
|||||
| Doyle v. Fin. Am., LLC, No. 540, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting mortgagee's motion to compel arbitration and staying mortgagors' lawsuit pending arbitration; valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, especially since mortgagors did not show, as required by Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-206(a), that grounds existed making arbitration agreement revocable.
|
|||||
| Joseph v. Bozzuto Mgmt. Co., No. 0322, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negligence action was properly dismissed where the injured party offered no evidence to show that appellees had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition and reliance on Montgomery County, Md., Code § 29-30(a)(2), which addressed landlord obligations, as a basis for proving negligence was improper as it did not create a tort duty.
|
|||||
| Morgan State Univ. v. Walker, No. 74, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of summary judgment to a university in a negligence action brought by an accident victim who slipped and fell while walking across an icy parking lot at the university was affirmed under the doctrine of assumption of risk because the evidence showed that the victim knowingly and voluntarily walked across the icy parking lot.
|
|||||
| Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp. v. Yanni, No. 67, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation (PCIGC) was not insurer for purposes of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-728. Penalties assessed did not arise out of workers' compensation policy, but statute; so, per Md. Code Ann. Ins. § 9-301(d), PCIGC had no duty to pay late fees assessed under Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-728.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. State, No. 63, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's "were-they-lying" questions were impermissible as matter of law as they encroached on province of jury by asking defendant to judge credibility of detectives and weigh testimony. Error was not harmless given number and combination of questions themselves, repeated emphasis during State's closing argument, and jury's questions to court.
|
|||||
| Swam v. Upper Chesapeake Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 75, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Medical center was not entitled to summary judgment regarding a claim under the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act because the initial filing of the claim in the wrong forum, the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, tolled the running of the statute of limitations under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. State, No. 59, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission into evidence of statement defendant made to F.B.I. agent that was not disclosed until one week before trial was not erroneous, as defendant had reasonable time to respond to newly discovered evidence but did not seek continuance or opportunity to talk to agent. Evidence of refusal to submit to blood testing was not per se inadmissible.
|
|||||
| Weems v. County Comm'rs, No. 97, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding easement granted to county was ambiguous and in dismissing property owners' request for declaratory judgment on constitutionality of Calvert County, Md., Code § 15-201; language granting easement was not ambiguous and that county code provision amounted to an impermissible taking of property owners' private property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
