 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Getty v. Carroll County Bd. of Elections, No. 139, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A circuit court erred in entering a consent order approving a new method of electing county commissioners by district, rather than at large, where the legislature had failed to enact a redistricting plan for the county. Instead, the court had interfered with a legislative function, in violation of Md. Const. art. VII, §§ 1 and 2.
|
|||||
| Nader For President 2004 v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, No. 76, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State elections board's invalidation of petition signatures, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-203(b)(2), because signatories had signed petition sheet for a county other than county in which they were registered to vote, was improper; its "county-match" requirement was inconsistent with and in derogation of constitutional voter provisions.
|
|||||
| Sprenger v. PSC of Md., No. 125, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's action for declaratory relief challenging approval of a plan to build a wind power facility was properly denied, because at the time the action was filed, petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedy as required by the Public Utility Companies Article of the Maryland Code because an earlier action was still pending.
|
|||||
| Costley v. State, No. 1013, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statement made two hours after defendant told officer he was not going to tell him anything, at different location and to different officer, and after Miranda warnings were issued was admissible. Autopsy report was admissible where, inter alia, witness based opinions on physical findings in report and defense counsel was able cross-examine witness.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, No. 1076, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant waived challenge to juror by choosing to remain silent until after verdict and asserting issue as basis for new trial. Where State introduced evidence portions of substances were shown by analysis to be cocaine, heroin, or marijuana, jury was entitled to infer identity and nature of remainder recovered from same source at same time.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, No. 1185, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing court erred in refusing to impose mandatory 10-year enhancement; subsequent offender who had not served 180 days on second drug crime conviction to qualify for minimum sentence for third offenses, but who had not been sentenced to mandatory minimum for second offenses, should have been sentenced under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5-608(b).
|
|||||
| Cutler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1376, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employees of certain retail stores were properly denied Md. R. 2-231(b)(3) class certification in their suit alleging that they were deprived of benefits and pay for certain work because they failed to show that common questions of law and fact predominated, particularly as an employee handbook did not create a contract common to all employees.
|
|||||
| Dynamic Corp. v. Shan Enters., LLC, No. 1457, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversal was required in a breach of contract suit because a circuit court erroneously imposed discovery sanctions on a general contractor, who properly complied with a subcontractor's Md. R. 2-422 request for production of documents, and the sanction, which prohibited the general from using certain documents at trial, was prejudicial to its case.
|
|||||
| Ishola v. State, No. 1427, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of assuming the identity of another, in violation of Md. Code, Crim. Law § 8-301(c), because on two occasions, defendant attempted to use an identity that was not his own to open bank accounts; the State did not have to show that defendant usurped the identity of someone whose existence could be proven.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
