 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Obi, No. AG 11, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the attorney disciplinary hearing, where the attorney asserted that there was no evidence that the materials requested by Bar Counsel were necessary to the investigation, this contention was immaterial, as the attorney's obligation under Md. R. 16-731(c)(1) was to provide any relevant material requested in the course of the investigation.
|
|||||
| Banks v. Pusey, No. 135, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A presumption of adverse use did not arise in favor of a person when that person began to live jointly with and on his parents' property as a minor and then continued to live on the property with his parents when he was an adult since no clear and convincing evidence was shown that he lived on the property against his parents' will.
|
|||||
| Blickenstaff v. State, No. 119, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18-month sentence for first degree escape, to be served at local correctional facility consecutive to the one-year sentence he had been serving when he escaped, was legal, as Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. Law § 9-105 (1999) did not bar court from imposing sentence of up to 18 months consecutive to sentence for prior, unrelated conviction.
|
|||||
| In re Maria P., No. 89, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in excluding mother from CINA proceedings without making any specific factual findings as to propriety of exclusion; mother's due process rights under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24, and Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 19 were violated based on assumption that mother would unduly influence child's testimony.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Ward, No. AG 47, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's failure to secure counsel was reasonable explanation for failure to respond to disciplinary action; thus, grant of motion to vacate default was proper. Exception to violation of Md. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1) was sustained as finding was inconsistent with decision Commission failed to prove attorney made false statement of material fact.
|
|||||
| Food Lion, Inc. v. McNeill, No. 2, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony of employee's expert could not be excluded at trial on the basis of the disclosure, made during discovery in response to interrogatories, that was neither claimed nor determined to be a discovery violation, but that was challenged by employer at trial as deficient for failing to provide information as required by Md. R. 2-402(f)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin, No. 52, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The discovery rule was held to apply to wrongful death cases under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904(g)(2) involving occupational diseases even though the time period prescribed under the wrongful death statute was a condition precedent to liability.
|
|||||
| Pollard v. State, No. 22, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an inmate's motion to correct an illegal sentence was affirmed because the trial judge's failure to exercise discretion in the imposition of a life sentence did not render the sentence illegal within the meaning of Md. Rule 4-345(a), nor in excess of that prescribed for the offense for which the inmate was convicted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
