 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brockington v. Grimstead, No. 58, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court committed reversible error when it allowed two alternate jurors to attend jury deliberations and then be substituted in for regular jurors, as such procedure was not permitted under Md. R. 2-511 and 2-512, and a standard of presumptive prejudice was applied which required a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.
|
|||||
| Culver v. Md. Ins. Comm'r, No. 2508, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in affirming the state insurance administration's revocation of insurance producer's license, which was done without an evidentiary hearing; he was properly barred from relitigating matters already decided by state's highest court regarding his disbarment as an attorney, which also allowed for insurance license revocation.
|
|||||
| Forbes v. State, No. 1661, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allowing State to ask defendant on cross-examination, in effect, whether during a confidential communication with his attorney defendant confessed that he had committed the robbery at issue or asked his lawyer to call a defense witness prepared to present false testimony, as those questions violated attorney-client privilege.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. State, No. 2554, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defendant who was granted a deferred reporting date of three years in the future and who was promised that he would not have to serve his sentence if he was of good behavior had not been placed on de facto probation; thus, he was not entitled to a probation violation hearing or to any of the other rights granted to a probationer.
|
|||||
| Abrams v. State, NO. 2021, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied appellant's petition for coram nobis relief based on his allegations that the Alford plea he entered was unconstitutional and violative of Md. R. 4-242(c) as an adequate factual basis existed for the plea as the record demonstrated that the trial judge explained all of the elements of the crime of uttering.
|
|||||
| Aleem v. Aleem, No. 1366, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Comity did not require a trial court to enforce Pakistani law giving a divorcing wife no interest in marital property titled in her husband's name because a substantial conflict between Pakistani and Maryland law on disposing of marital property made Pakistani law contrary to Maryland public policy in Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§ 8-201 through 8-214.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. Quillen, Misc. Docket AG No. 66, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Marcus J., No. 2503, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was vacated because a juvenile appellant's notice of exceptions complied with plain language of Md. R. 11-111 and Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-807(c) since it pointed to allegedly erroneous admission of opinion testimony given by police officer, who was not an expert, and clearly requested a de novo hearing.
|
|||||
| Odem v. State, No. 2261, September Term, 2006, No. 2262, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A circuit court did not err in not dismissing charges a district court dismissed for non-compliance with Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 2-608 (2006) because (1) the State could appeal the dismissal or file charges in the circuit court, and (2) jeopardy did not attach in the district court because the issue argued there did not concern guilt.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
