 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knight v. Princess Builders, Inc., No. 67, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A company, who entered into a contract to purchase real property from a personal representative of an estate was permitted to appeal from an order directing the personal representative to sell the real property to one of the estate's heirs as the company was properly considered a party under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-502.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Human Res. v. Howard, No. 2099, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in reversing administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that the mother engaged in an act of "indicated child abuse," as facts found by ALJ did not support that conclusion of law pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-701; her intent to strike back of son's head to discipline him did not amount to "indicated child abuse."
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Ryan, Misc. Docket AG No. 11, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Griner v. State, No. 1580, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child abuse/assault case, defendant was never in custody since she was always free to leave and was not arrested and, therefore, the dictates of Miranda did not apply with regard to her numerous statements as to how the child received his injuries. As a result, defendant's statements were properly admitted into evidence at trial.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. State, No. 398, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State did not violate Md. R. 4-263 by not informing defense counsel of defendant's statement to federal agent until week before second trial because agent did not regularly report to State's Attorney and because statement did not fall within State's disclosure obligation until agent first reported to State's Attorney with reference to case.
|
|||||
| Neal v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 1751, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a mortgagor claimed that the mortgagee had contracted to comply with HUD servicing requirements, it was error to grant summary judgment to the mortgagee solely on the ground that there was no private cause of action to enforce the regulations. If the mortgagee had contracted to follow the regulations, it could be liable for breach of contract.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, No. 1839, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence to 25 years of imprisonment without parole for distribution of cocaine, as a prior offender, was reversed as defendant's prior term of confinement in excess of 180 days was for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, which was common law misdemeanor and was not offense listed in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5-608(c)(1)(i).
|
|||||
| John Crane, Inc. v. Puller, No. 1772, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legally sufficient evidence supported verdict awarding damages to first mesothelioama victim's survivors and second mesothelioma victim's survivors, but damages might have to be recalculated on remand of case, as trial court erroneously applied Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108's statutory cap to respective loss of consortium awards.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
