 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| J.T.W. v. Ctr. Ins. Co., No. 446, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insured's appeal was erroneously dismissed as untimely since he was required to file his petition for judicial review within 30 days following service of the order resulting from the administrative hearing, as required by Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 2-215(d)(1), which meant the date the notice was received, not the date it was mailed.
|
|||||
| McIntyre v. State, No. 2206, September Term 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of child pornography was upheld on appeal because the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to the officer executing the search warrant since defendant was not in custody at the time.
|
|||||
| Chang v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., No. 657, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A clause ambiguously said an insurer would consider an insured's mitigation expenses, and fact questions existed as to costs being reasonable mitigation expenses the insurer agreed to pay. If the insurer had to pay costs, it could be liable to defend a claim against the insured, but not to defend or indemnify as to an excluded third party claim.
|
|||||
| Smithfield Packing Co. v. Evely, No. 806, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to sustain the employee's claim for malicious prosecution because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the employee, showed that the employer had probable cause to believe that the employee was involved in a theft, and, thus, trial court's judgment for the employee had to be reversed.
|
|||||
| Koshko v. Haining, No. 1302, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under case precedent, Maryland's Grandparent Visitation Statute, Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 9-102, was held valid and constitutional as it honored the presumption that the parents' decision was in the best interest of the children and did not require a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as harm, to prevent an award of grandparent visitation.
|
|||||
| Tarachanskaya v. Volodarsky, No. 1453, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In child custody action where mother alleged father sexually abused child, trial court applied incorrect burden of proof, using preponderance of evidence standard when reasonable grounds standard was proper. Witnesses who investigated 300 to 500 cases, who had Master's Degree and Ph.D., and who were appointed by court properly qualified as experts.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Porter, Misc. Docket AG No. 6, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Wingerter, Misc. Docket AG No. 71, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Conteh v. Conteh, No. 104, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an ex-husband's disability pension benefits were indisputably acquired during the marriage, such benefits were martial property under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 8-205, subject to division. As a result, a trial court judgment holding otherwise was reversed on appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
