 |
|
 |
|
|
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 of Md. v. McBroom, Misc. Docket AG No. 93, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dvorak v. Anne Arundel County Ethics Comm'n, No. 143, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County commission's motion to dismiss an appeal by former county employees from a circuit court's review of an administrative decision of the commission was granted because the circuit court's review of the commission's decision was nonappealable under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-302.
|
|||||
| Hurst v. State, No. 124, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intermediate appellate court improperly affirmed judgments of conviction, as trial court erred in admitting rape victim's testimony regarding unrelated case from 21 years ago that she had not consented to sexual intercourse; such testimony, admitted regarding consent issue in current case, was improper propensity evidence barred by Md. R. 5-404.
|
|||||
| King v. State, No. 134, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred by attempting to convert a contempt proceeding to one that was summary in nature; when the trial court chose not to summarily punish the attorney during the underlying criminal action, it forewent its opportunity to proceed summarily. Proceeding summarily at a later date circumvented compliance with Md. R. 15-204 and 15-205.
|
|||||
| Arey v. State, No. 82, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing petition for post-conviction DNA testing based on sergeant's representation that, because he checked evidence control unit's database and forms on file, it was reasonable to concluded evidence no longer existed. Court had power to appoint counsel at any stage of proceedings under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-201.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. Sapero, Misc. Docket AG No. 34, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was reprimanded for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(c), 1.15(a), and 8.1(b), by, inter alia, failing to provide his clients with a settlement sheet at the time of settlement of tort claim despite contested medical bills and failing to timely produce documents requested in a subpoena in a format that permitted their use by Bar Counsel.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Donahue, No. 84, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terminated state employee was properly fired when he did not respond to notice of disciplinary meeting or appear at it; he could be deemed "unavailable" under Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. § 11-106(a) since State made good faith effort to notify him, and he did not appear or respond to notice despite being given reasonable time to do so.
|
|||||
| Gazunis v. Foster, No. 120, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since former employee abandoned her arbitration demand, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, which meant she had no right to pursue her claims for wrongful demotion, termination, breach of contract, or her and her husband's derivative loss of consortium claim, against board of education and no new trial could be had on those claims.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. Hekyong Pak, Misc. Docket AG No. 83, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, August 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred after she was found to have violated former Md. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3, 4.1, 5.5, and 8.4(c) and (d), by, inter alia, aiding and advising her parents to create shell corporations to transfer title of real property to avoid judgment lien; attorney created corporations in effort to delay, hinder, or defraud parents' creditors.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
