 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ayala v. State, No. 943, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Gang evidence was admissible to establish motive as testimony presented corroborated pretrial statement that perpetrators and victim were members of rival gangs. Despite fact defendant was not taken before judicial officer before talking police, denial of motion to suppress was proper, as statements were made voluntarily waiver of Miranda rights.
|
|||||
| Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, No. 110, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court erred in determining Frye-Reed hearing was not needed to consider medical expert's theory of causation; his opinion was based on an underlying scientific principle and, thus, trial court needed to determine whether his theory and techniques he employed to develop theory were generally accepted in medical community.
|
|||||
| Jacksonville Mach. & Repair, Inc. v. Kent Sand & Gravel, LLC, No. 0583, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was vacated as dredge might be lienable under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 9-102(c) if it remained in substantially stationary location on premises during its operational use and was capable of being removed from premises and used in another location. How dredge performed its work and was installed in quarry were not adequately considered.
|
|||||
| Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc., No. 2122, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a builder settled with certain defendants, who then assigned their claims against a manufacturer to the builder, the builder could not recover more from the manufacturer on the assigned claims than the amount the settling defendants could be required to pay under the settlement.
|
|||||
| FOP Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc. v. Manger, No. 1280, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for a police department was affirmed because whether the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §§ 3-101 through 3-113, was triggered by an investigation of a complaint against an officer was not an issue, and the recovery of police files from the officer's home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Weaver v. ZeniMax Media, Inc., No. 2368, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an employee let himself into offices of other employees, printed e-mails that he was not a party to off their computers, and copied other documents, the dismissal of his action against his employer was an abuse of discretion, as his conduct and the implications thereof were not so egregious as to warrant the ultimate sanction.
|
|||||
| Westbard Apts., LLC v. Westwood Joint Venture, LLC, No. 1471, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A joint venture's member was bound by a jury trial waiver in the venture's operating agreement, and the joint venture's members were bound by the agreement's unambiguous bar against independent pursuit of ventures related to the joint venture, so a member's individual purchase of land the joint venture tried to buy violated the operating agreement.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Clarke, No. 102, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sanctioned a patient and his wife in their medical malpractice action by precluding their expert witness testimony under Md. R. 2-433 as they committed discovery violations, and properly entered summary judgment for the health care providers because the patient and his wife could not then sustain their burden of proof.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
