 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adventist Health Care, Inc. v. Md. Health Care Comm'n, No. 73, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Maryland Health Care Commission decision that hospital's intent to relocate existing cardiac surgery program triggered comparative review process required on application for Certificate of Need (CON) for new program was upheld, as nothing in Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 19-118 explicitly required relocation CONs be submitted to different process.
|
|||||
| Bd. of License Comm'rs for Prince George's County v. Global Express Money Orders, Inc., No. 938, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling that Board of License Commissioners should have reported failure of witnesses to testify to circuit court was wrong; although Md. Ann. Code art. 2B, § 16-410, gave Board subpoena power and method to enforce power, it did not automatically require Board to report to court failure of witness to testify, though Board was empowered to do so.
|
|||||
| St. Joseph Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Assocs., P.A., No. 64, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying a hospital's motion for protective order under Md. R. 2-403, trial court erred by ruling that e-mails, letters, and testimony of hospital staff to medical review committee were not protected by medical review committee privilege, as Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 1-401(d)(1) was not limited to documents generated by the committee itself.
|
|||||
| Twigg v. Riverside Apts., LLC, No. 1047, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agreements imposing set impact fees, and purporting to waive any other municipal fees, were void since they were accomplished by private agreement with city's mayor, and not by ordinance, as required under Md. Ann. Code art. 23A, § 2; mayor could not contract away board of aldermen's exclusive power under city charter to pass ordinances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
