 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryant v. State, No. 102, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A criminal defendant's status as an inmate did not deprive him of the statutory privilege for communications related to his mental or emotional disorder under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-109, but that privilege did not extend to communications to a nurse conducting an intake screening to prevent harm to a detainee or others.
|
|||||
| Del Marr v. Montgomery County, No. 2789, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a claimant's initial award by the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission was reduced pursuant to a petition for judicial review, an employer was entitled to a credit for the number of weeks of benefits actually paid in accordance with the original order, rather than a credit based upon the amount of money previously paid to the claimant.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. DeHaan, No. 93, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Determination that the insured was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits for injuries the insured sustained when an individual shot the insured while stealing the insured's vehicle was reversed because fact assailant was in vehicle and was in control of vehicle at time of incident did not constitute "use" under Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-509.
|
|||||
| Toth v. State, No. 96, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge wrongly did not apply Md. Code Ann., Transp., § 26-204, wrongly told clerk not to accept defendant's check for speeding fine in his citation, and wrongly made him go to trial. Offer of a check was defendant's response to notice to appear, paying a fine equaled conviction, and holding a trial violated Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| 8621 Ltd. P'ship v. LDG, Inc., No. 0058, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling limited partnership and joint property purchaser's promise in their joint venture agreement to create side street access route if that "can reasonably be" done was merely aspirational and was not enforceable; reasonable fact-finder could conclude that standard memorialized "a meeting of the minds" obligating each party.
|
|||||
| Cohn v. Freeman, No. 611, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly awarded post-judgment interest accruing from later date on which litigation over partner's right to share from the sale of license was conclusively settled and not on earlier date when judgment in her favor had been entered; pursuant to Md. R. 2-604(b), she was only entitled to compel payment of judgment on that later date.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Baltimore County, No. 0281, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment based on the failure of the workers' compensation claimant to file a written response was erroneous because motion itself demonstrated a dispute of material fact. As the prevailing party before the Workers' Compensation Commission, claimant was not required to produce additional evidence to survive summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Kantar v. Grand Marques Cafe, No. 0665, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision of the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission to reopen the employee's case was not presumed to be prima facie correct under Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-745(b), as the decision only provided that the employee pleaded sufficient facts to state a viable claim that her condition had worsened due to accident-related conditions.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1033, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurance contract suit was properly transferred from Baltimore to Montgomery County under Md. R. 2-327(c). The accident occurred in Montgomery County, where plaintiff and most potential witnesses lived; the insurer did business throughout the state as well as in Baltimore; and though an expert lived in Baltimore, he could expect to travel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
