 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beyond Sys. v. Secure Med., Inc., No. 2793, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where senders waived issue of lack of personal jurisdiction under Md. R. 2-322(a) by failing to raise it before answer and where recipient failed to raise waiver issue before the trial court, appellate court exercised its discretion under Md. R. 8-131(a) to reach question of senders' waiver and found that defense was waived.
|
|||||
| Bond v. Messerman, No. 48, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed a client's action against an attorney alleging legal malpractice and other causes of action, as telephone calls and two letters sent to the client in Maryland did not amount to sufficient minimum contacts with the state to support personal jurisdiction in compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Burch v. United Cable TV of Balt. Ltd. P'ship, No. 62, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court properly affirmed trial court's ruling that granted cable television provider's motion to vacate permanent injunction that had enjoined cable television provider from collecting late fees in excess of a certain sum; trial court was authorized to do so in order to comply with new law, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-1315.
|
|||||
| Fullbright v. State, No. 2548, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officer testified that he did not submit knife for fingerprint analysis because knife was wet with blood and prints could not be removed from it, his testimony was not expert or lay opinion evidence under Md. R. 5-701, -702, as it was not offered for its truth. It was offered to explain why knife was not submitted for fingerprint analysis.
|
|||||
| Norkunas v. Cochran, No. 0094, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A letter of intent to sell realty, signed by seller and buyers, was not an enforceable contract because buyers agreed to submit a more formal offer. Real estate contract signed by seller but not returned was not enforceable because it never left the seller's possession, so it was unnecessary to find if the seller's alterations were a counteroffer.
|
|||||
| Piven v. Comcast Corp., Nos. 0427 & 2281, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed owners' trespass cases concerning properties in different counties as Maryland General Assembly did not intend Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-203(c) (2002) to permit the override of § 6-203(b) by voluntarily joining in one action claims of separate owners involving separate injuries to separate properties.
|
|||||
| Republic Props. Corp. v. Mission W. Props., LP, No. 41, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Maryland court lacked personal jurisdiction over a foreign limited partnership whose only connection to Maryland consisted of its corporate managing general partner's re-incorporation in Maryland.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, No. 44, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court was unable to address challenge to procedures set forth in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc, §§ 3-106, 107, relating to commitment to facility designated by Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and dismissal of charges, as order denying relief was not final order in criminal case and therefore, was not appealable as final judgment.
|
|||||
| Ward v. Hartley, No. 175, September Term 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The landlord was entitled to summary judgment under Md. R. 2-501 in plaintiff's personal injury action in which plaintiff sought to hold the landlord liable for a dog bite he suffered from the tenants' dog. The landlord retained no control over any portion of the premises, so the landlord had no duty to inspect the premises.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
