 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Green v. Carr Lowery Glass Co., No. 104, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Covered employee was not eligible for medical benefits, i.e. hearing aids, after his hearing was damaged under Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-660 unless he was also eligible for compensation under both Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 9-505 and 9-650.
|
|||||
| Pendleton v. State, No. 31, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing a claimant's amended complaint alleging that state representatives' negligence permitted a roommate to sexually and physically abuse the claimant at a group home where the claimant had been placed; the allegations were factually insufficient to plead a duty on the state representatives' part.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. State, No. 86, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion under the Fourth Amendment to suppress confession he made after he was detained during the execution of a search warrant at a house he had occupied and had just left, as the police had authority under Michigan v. Summers to detain him to promote officer safety while they searched for illegal narcotics.
|
|||||
| In re Lakeshia M., No. 96, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defense counsel's representation that a juvenile did not understand her role, or that of the prosecutor, and that she suffered from bi-polar disorder was sufficient to draw into question the presumption of competence, the court should have conducted a competency inquiry pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-17.1.
|
|||||
| Moscarillo v. Prof'l Risk Mgmt. Servs., No. 61, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court properly affirmed trial court's summary judgment grant to the insurer, as insurance policy did not place duty on insurer to defend insured; allegations in underlying complaint against him were for intentional misconduct and policy expressly excluded coverage for such misconduct, which left no potential policy coverage.
|
|||||
| Edmund v. State, No. 94, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's highest court declined to dismiss charge against defendant in indictment for first-degree assault in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-202; that the State was unable to identify, by name, the person who defendant assaulted was not fatal to his conviction since it was not jurisdictional and he confessed to assaulting a human being.
|
|||||
| Harford County v. Saks Fifth Ave. Distrib. Co., No. 36, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court correctly found that governmental entities owed interest to taxpayer on the money that governmental entities refunded to the taxpayer, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. §§ 14-603 and 14-611, but erred in finding payment of prejudgment interest was discretionary, as taxpayer was entitled to it as a matter of right.
|
|||||
| Wisneski v. State, No. 76, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant exposed himself to others at a home he was visiting, he was properly convicted of common law indecent exposure. The fact that exposure took place in a private home did not mean that it could not be public; rather, it required willfulness and observation by a casual observer who did not expect the exposure and who was offended by it.
|
|||||
| State v. Rush, No. 2007, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of some statements made by defendant to the police was proper, because incriminating statements made after a detective made implied promises that defendant would receive special benefits by elimination or reduction of charges if she spoke were determined to have been involuntary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
