 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cmty. Clinic, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 2344, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of state health department's regulation establishing monetary cap on a class of costs included in medical center's requests for reimbursement, which resulted in disallowance of those requests, did not violate federal law since state regulation allowed medical centers the opportunity to prove costs exceeding state cap were reasonable.
|
|||||
| Evans v. State, No. 2446, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury instruction on State's failure to use certain investigative and scientific techniques was not improper where it was a correct statement of law, was applicable to the facts, was not fairly covered by other instructions, and was warranted based on defense counsel's closing arguments regarding State's failure to employ certain such techniques.
|
|||||
| Martin v. State, No. 2146, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence defendant accosted victim with a bat or a tree branch was sufficient to support finding defendant intended to intimidate or intimidated victim, as such action could reasonably have placed victim in apprehension, and thus, supported robbery conviction. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on a claim of right defense.
|
|||||
| City of Bowie v. MIE Props., Inc., No. 57, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restrictive covenants for real property were found to remain valid and enforceable because the purpose for the covenants was not obviated by either the absence of a university from its planned participation in the development of a research and office park project on the property or the surrounding physical changes to the neighborhood.
|
|||||
| Prince George's County v. Ray's Used Cars, No. 133, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judicial determination of the constitutionality of a county zoning ordinance establishing the minimum lot size for used vehicle lots was premature; used car dealers failed to invoke and exhaust their administrative remedies, and, thus, intermediate appellate court's judgment upholding trial court's judgment on constitutional grounds was reversed.
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Neal, No. 58, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mortgagor was not entitled to advance a state law contract claim based on an asserted breach of the HUD regulations alluded to in a form deed of trust as an affirmative cause of action, but under Md. R. 14-209(b)(1), he was allowed to raise a violation of the regulations in pursuit of an injunction blocking the mortgagee's foreclosure action.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Goff, Misc. Docket No. 56, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(a) and (b), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), Md. R. 16-609, and Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 10-306, in connection with handling of client funds in connection with an estate matter, including, inter alia, disbursement of funds before deposit of settlement checks.
|
|||||
| Layton v. Howard County Bd. of Appeals, No. 116, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's affirmance of a decision by the county board of appeals that denied the sanctuary owners' application for a special exception to operate as a primate sanctuary, as change in county code during litigation that might allow them to operate that way was to be applied retrospectively.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
