 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Griggs v. C&H Mech. Corp., No. 2264, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation award was properly reversed on limitations grounds under Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-709. Even though the defense had been waived, the trial court had a right to consider it because timely filing was a condition precedent to the claim and there was no admissible evidence of reliance to excuse the untimely filing.
|
|||||
| Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zelinski, No. 81, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Policy issued to employer did not violate Maryland law by containing named driver exclusion endorsement excluding coverage for driver whose license had been suspended. Nothing in Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-606(a) prohibited such endorsement; it merely repealed requirement that such endorsement be offered in lieu of cancelling commercial policies.
|
|||||
| United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Riley, No. 40, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial summary judgment was improperly granted to an insurer declaring that children were not injured by lead during the first two of four consecutive periods in which the insurer's policies covered their home. Inconsistencies in an expert's testimony raised factual issues and did not prove as a matter of law when the children's injuries occurred.
|
|||||
| Willard Packaging Co. v. Javier, NO. 2097, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract suit wherein an employer sought to enforce a liquidated damages provision in a covenant not to compete, because the parties were of unequal bargaining party, the burden of proof was placed on the employer to show the provision was reasonable, which it failed to do.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Hart, No. 2496, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 8-202, trial court erred in ordering unequal distribution of proceeds from sale of family home in marriage dissolution action. Trial court should have considered proceeds of sale as part of Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 8-210 equitable distribution and then ordered a monetary award under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 8-205.
|
|||||
| In re John F., No. 1741, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court, sitting as juvenile court in Child in Need of Assistance proceeding, was court of general jurisdiction, and presumption in favor of subject matter jurisdiction applied; mother failed to rebut presumption, as only evidence was, inter alia, evidence showing mother was not served in Maryland and her testimony she moved to Pennsylvania.
|
|||||
| Kang v. State, No. 59, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Waiver of right to jury trial was knowing and voluntary as, inter alia, substance of colloquy was adequate in informing defendant and ascertaining defendant's awareness of his fundamental jury rights. Challenge to admission of prior consistent statements was waived because defense counsel's continuing objection was not clearly granted on record.
|
|||||
| Moscarillo v. Prof'l Risk Mgmt. Servs., No. 2471, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insolvent insurer, a guarantor, and an administrator were properly granted summary judgment in an insured's declaratory judgment and breach of contract action because the insured was not entitled under an insurance policy to recoup his defense costs from an underlying lawsuit as the underlying litigation was for fraud rather than negligence.
|
|||||
| Swift v. State, No. 98, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Controlled dangerous substance seized from defendant should have been suppressed after police officer seized defendant without reasonable grounds to believe that defendant had committed a crime; officer's testimony defendant was not free to leave in conjunction with circumstances of stop indicated that stop was investigative, not consensual.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
