 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barber v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc., No. 2819, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A wrongful death suit was dismissed in error based on the sufficiency of a timely filed Certificate of Qualified Expert under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04(b) due to the Certificate not renaming all 12 defendants and referring to them collectively as health care providers as appellants were entitled to seek a good cause extension.
|
|||||
| Johns Hopkins Hosp. v. Correia, No. 2453, September Term 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in instructing the jury as to the duty owed by a building owner to an accident victim because the owner owed passengers in its elevator the duty to exercise the highest degree of care and skill in operating and maintaining the device. Testimony was admissible under Md. R. 5-407 because it did not involve the causation issue.
|
|||||
| Rankin v. State, No. 2872, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probationary period was implicit in terms of plea agreement; although prosecutor did not specifically discuss probation, prosecutor told trial court only sentencing limitation was "active cap," executed part of sentence, was three years. Written agreement recited there could be additional suspended time giving court authority to impose probation.
|
|||||
| Yourik v. Mallonee, No. 0302, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that a mother established all the elements of adverse possession under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 14-108(a) was affirmed because there was substantial evidence that the mother's occupancy of a property, to which she admitted that her son held the recorded title, was under a claim of right that was hostile to her son's claim.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Myers, Misc. Docket AG No. 72, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cornfeld v. State Bd. of Physicians, No. 0175, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A physician's false statements to both a hospital peer review investigator and the State Board of Physicians involved the manner in which he practiced medicine and the manner in which he treated a patient and, therefore, constituted professional misconduct in the practice of medicine, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 14-404(a).
|
|||||
| Maddox v. Stone, No. 1179, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was vacated as it was abuse of discretion to strike mother's expert witness for failing to timely provide expert's report under Md. R. 2-402(f)(1)(A) without considering that Md. R. 2-504 was a rule of timing, not of substance, and that mother provided expert's report as soon as she received it, weeks before expert's deposition.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, No. 2185, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search of trunk of defendant's vehicle, including the trunk, after defendant was lawfully stopped for speeding, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as police officer had probable cause to believe marijuana was somewhere in defendant's vehicle based on the odor of burnt marijuana the officer smelled after approaching defendant's vehicle.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
