 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Kaela C., No. 63, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a juvenile proceedings, a trial court erred in adopting a master's recommendations changing custody of the parties three children from a mother to the father prior to the expiration of the five days afforded by Md. R. 11-111(c) for filing exceptions.
|
|||||
| N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Boston Med. Group, No. 2689, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court order dismissing the prior action pursuant to Md. R. 2-322, on the grounds that the complaint, on its face, was barred by the statute of limitations was an adjudication on the merits under the doctrine of res judicata. The prior court's omission of the phrase "with prejudice" in the order of dismissal was of no consequence.
|
|||||
| State v. Ofori, No. 0267, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Terry-stop drug investigation case, a delay of 16 or 17 minutes, or arguably 24 minutes, to obtain a K-9 unit was not an unreasonable detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore did not invalidate the detention of defendant. As a result, the trial court's grant of defendant's suppression motion was reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Savage, No. 0231, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Knock and announce violations were held not to trigger the exclusionary rule. Thus, in a drug possession case, a trial court erred by suppressing physical evidence seized via a search warrant due to the police not knocking on an open door, and defendant lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation since he was not present at the search.
|
|||||
| Veytsman v. New York Palace, Inc., No. 2545, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A restaurant owed no duty to patrons who were allegedly assaulted by guests at a restaurant wedding reception because no prior criminal activity of the type giving rise to such a duty had taken place in the restaurant and there was no evidence that the restaurant knew or should have known of a potential for violence before the assault began.
|
|||||
| Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., No. 578, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action involving chin surgery, a trial court erred by granting hospital's motion for JNOV because patient had presented competent evidence that supported his right to recover and his position that he was not informed of the risks of permanent numbness and loss of function, therefore, making JNOV inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Mt. Vernon Belvedere Ass'n v. Balt. City Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., Petition Docket No. 356, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Vovak v. Duncan, Petition Docket No. 355, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Walker v. Grow, No. 2613, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child support modification case involving above guidelines income, the trial court erred by failing to consider a father's additional income from an S Corporation, dividend income and interest from a money market fund, a one time commission he received, and other relevant sources of income as required by Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 12-201(b)(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
