 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Wisneski v. State, No. 222, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case wherein defendant was a guest in a private home and he exposed himself to three people, none of whom were members of his family or members of his household, such conduct constituted indecent exposure in a public place and provided sufficient evidence to uphold defendant's conviction for indecent exposure.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Rodgers, Misc. Docket AG No. 24, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Roskelly v. Lamone, No. 141,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Lee, AG No. 8, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended under Md. R. 16-759 as he (1) violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 by largely neglecting his client's case; (2) violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a) by failing to keep his client reasonably informed; and (3) violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) by making a misrepresentation to an investigator.
|
|||||
| Chow v. State, No. 99, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant loaned his gun to a friend, he was not in violation of former Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 442(d). A temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun between two adults, who were otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun, did not constitute an illegal "transfer" in violation of § 442(d).
|
|||||
| County Comm'rs for St. Mary's County v. Lacer, No. 85, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial summary judgment finding county commissioners liable to an employee for breach of contract was not appealable, under Md. R. 2-602(b), as damages were not decided, and an order letting him depose the commissioners was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as it was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
|
|||||
| F.A.C.E. Trading, Inc. v. Todd, No. 112, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Games of chance, based on tickets bought from a dispensing machine, offering consumers a chance to win cash prizes, were illegal "gaming devices" or "games" under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 12-101(d)(1)(ii) (2004) and were punishable as misdemeanors under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 12-104 because consideration was paid for a chance to win a prize.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
