 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Kimmer, Misc. Docket No. 12, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the applicant accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., for the bar examination. The state high court had exclusive jurisdiction over bar admission matters.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. State, No. 57, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defense of defendant was that his wife committed abuse that killed child, case law allowing defendant, under some circumstances, to offer into evidence witness's assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege was inapplicable. Defense counsel made clear to trial court on numerous occasions that he had no intention of calling wife as witness.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 2106, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, upon arriving at premises as search warrant execution was concluding, was pulled into premises by officer and asked if he possessed weapons or drugs, this did not violate Fourth Amendment. It could not be assumed that defendant's 1:00 a.m. arrival at premises was unconnected with criminal activity or that he posed no threat.
|
|||||
| Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mt. Lake Park, No. 60, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding mayor and town council had not complied with Md. Ann. Code art. 23A, § 19 by not setting hearing on an annexation resolution not less than 15 days after publication of last annexation resolution notice; the hearing was held on the 15th day after first full day following date of publication of last annexation notice.
|
|||||
| City of Frederick v. Pickett, No. 74, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although owner's property was not located in slum area or blighted area, City of Frederick was permitted to acquire property under Md. Ann. Code art. 23A, § 2(b)(37), which used language that provided for acquisition of individual blighted properties without any condition that specific property had to be located in slum area or blighted area.
|
|||||
| Clemons v. State, No. 70, September Term 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA) was not admissible under the Frye-Reed standard. A genuine controversy existed within the scientific community about the reliability and validity of CBLA; its underlying assumptions that an ingot or vat of lead was homogenous and that each molten lead source was unique were being questioned by scientists.
|
|||||
| Gorman v. State, No. 1282, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exigent circumstances supported warrantless search of defendant's apartment; once the person opened door and observed the officer, the officer had no time to obtain a search warrant; even if officer could detain person, he did not know if other people were inside apartment who could destroy marijuana should the officer leave to obtain a warrant.
|
|||||
| Catala v. State, No. 1952, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When after the verdict was announced, defense counsel informed the trial court that he would be working for the State's Attorney, this was not grounds for reversal. Defendant had not shown that defense counsel's future employment with the State was an actual conflict of interest or that defense counsel's performance was deficient.
|
|||||
| Volkomer v. State, No. 2130, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the probation officer was legally on defendant's property to conduct a probation home visit and where the probation officer saw through a plastic bag that it contained objects that defendant was suspected of taking during a burglary, this triggered the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
