 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Annapolis v. Bowen, No. 2462, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Annapolis, Md., City Code § 3.36.150A1 did not entitle retirees to pension increases based upon pay raises for active-duty employees. The provision appeared in a section entitled "cost-of-living adjustment" and thus presumably applied only to such adjustments, and the court was to give weight to a civil service board's interpretation of the code.
|
|||||
| Livingston v. Naylor, No. 12, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by denying a judgment debtor's motion to dismiss a writ of garnishment since due process did not permit the garnishment in Maryland of compensation the debtor earned for services rendered outside of Maryland as the garnishment order was based solely upon the fact that the debtor's employer did business in Maryland.
|
|||||
| Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Kemper Ins. Co., No. 2771, September, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversal was required in a declaratory judgment lawsuit regarding insurance coverage under a business automobile liability policy because there was no ambiguity regarding a policy exclusion, and the insured's employee was not intended to be covered under the policy when he was driving his own automobile.
|
|||||
| 104 W. Wash. St. II Corp. v. City of Hagerstown, No. 1377, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adult business ordinance did not violate an adult business's free speech rights under U.S. Const. amend. I and Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 40 because a city relied on citizen reports regarding drug and sexual activity and on city officials' observations of dangerous conditions and the evidence relied upon was relevant to the ordinance's purposes.
|
|||||
| In re Roneika S., No. 2719, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing a juvenile delinquency petition, because the petition satisfied the requirements of Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 21, as the petition did more than merely state the elements of the charged offense, and included specific facts concerning the alleged offense and the names and addresses of witnesses.
|
|||||
| Chance v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 240, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a manager's motion to dismiss a transit authority's petition for judicial review of a workers' compensation commission's reinstatement of a claim, because the petition was not filed within the 30-day period provided by Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-737 (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2006 Suppl.).
|
|||||
| Dove v. Childs, No. 233, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mobile home park owners' decision to close the park did not amount to a change in use under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. 8A-202(c)(3) as the provision's clear intent was to protect tenants only as long as property was used as a mobile home park. The owners had satisfied all of the elements of Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 8A-1702(b)(2).
|
|||||
| Swoboda v. Wilder, No. 0070, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in affirming decision of county board of appeals that the townhouse property of couple fronted a particular road for purpose of complying with county setback requirements; all physical characteristics of property, and not merely street address and foundation walls, had to be and were considered to make that determination.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
