 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Elliott, No. 1137, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper for the Maryland Board of Physicians to have delegated an application for reinstatement of medical license case to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the task of conducting a hearing, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 10-205.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Agric., Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam'rs v. Hammond, No. 206, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Review of Maryland Department of Agriculture properly affirmed Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners' (SBVME's) ruling against a veterinarian, based solely on record, because under Md. Code Ann., Agric. § 2-405(f) and Md. Code Ann., State Gov't 10-222(h), it had not been allowed to conduct a de novo review of SBVME's ruling.
|
|||||
| Testerman v. State, No. 2781, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Switching seats with passenger did not constitute eluding police officer under Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-904; defendant's action was not to flee or conceal his person or otherwise avoid contact with officer, but only to mislead officer into believing defendant was not driver. Counsel was ineffective for failing to move for judgment of acquittal.
|
|||||
| Frankel v. Friolo, NO. 254, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employee was awarded attorneys' fees under Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-427(d), -507.1(b), although the trial court properly used a lodestar calculation, the trial court erred in failing to provide a clear explanation of the factors employed in arriving at its award.
|
|||||
| In re Antoine M., No. 120, September Term, 2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment adjudicating the juvenile as delinquent for a violation of the criminal trespass statute now set forth in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 6-403, was vacated because the lower court did not ascertain whether the juvenile had the requisite mens rea while on the property. Argument was not waived by a failure to make a motion under Md. R. 4-324(a).
|
|||||
| Mount Vernon Props., LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 399, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment grant for drawee bank regarding whether drawee bank properly charged check drawer's account based on check drawer's check presented to drawee bank was largely reversed, as the role that person played who presented check to drawee bank precluded summary judgment on three of four theories pled in check drawer's complaint.
|
|||||
| Schisler v. State, No. 140, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attempt by the General Assembly to remove incumbent members of the Public Service Commission pursuant to Senate Bill 1 (Md.) was null and void as an unconstitutional usurpation of removal power granted to the governor under the provisions of Md. Const. art. II, § 15, and was further null and void as being in violation of Article II, §§ 1 and 9.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
