 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Duckworth v. Deane, No. 101, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court clerk, legislators, and a citizen could not intervene, under Md. R. 2-214, in a suit against other clerks for not issuing marriage licenses because (1) the Attorney General, who was involved, had to represent the clerk, (2) the citizen had no unique interest, and (3) the legislators' interests in a statute provided an insufficient interest.
|
|||||
| Ricketts v. Ricketts, No. 136, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a husband alleged that his wife had denied him marital relations and forced him from the marital bed, the fact that the parties were still living in the same home, though in separate bedrooms, did not prevent him from seeking a limited divorce under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 7-102 based on constructive desertion or from seeking child custody.
|
|||||
| State v. Brady, No. 27, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed reversible error when it instructed a jury that the doctrine of transferred intent applied to an attempted murder charge. The doctrine of transferred intent did not apply to attempted murder when an unintended victim was injured but not killed.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Lee, AG No. 20, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) in connection with representation of a client in a bankruptcy matter. Complaint could not be dismissed based on complainant's request as evidence did not fail to show sanctionable professional misconduct.
|
|||||
| Curtin v. State, No.114, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to ask defendant's proposed voir dire question, "Does anyone have any strong feelings concerning the use of handguns that they would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence?" Question was not one that, if answered in affirmative, would have allowed for strike for cause.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Bay City Prop. Owners Ass'n, No. 131, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a 1952 deed required that a boat harbor be designated in a recorded plat, and a seller later designated a buyer's lot as a boat harbor but failed to file a recorded plat as provided in the 1952 deed, the boat harbor designation was not effective, and the seller was not justified in preventing the buyer from building a residence upon the lot.
|
|||||
| Rivers v. State, No. 105, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State proffered sufficient evidence to establish, through process of elimination, that substance defendant sold to buyer was noncontrolled substance; forensic chemist testified she excluded all other controlled dangerous substances through a visual inspection and then used a chemical analysis to determine that the substance was not in fact cocaine.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
