 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bennett v. State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation, No. 1838, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to revise affirmance of ruling that mortgage asset was to be used in calculating net worth under Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 9-104(a) was affirmed since statute did not exclude equity in dwelling that was converted to cash proceeds, whether through refinancing or home equity loan, and was held or used to purchase investment assets.
|
|||||
| Haskins v. State, No. 1802, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's second motion to correct illegal sentence under Md. R. 4-345(a) was affirmed as defendant's motion did not have a proper basis since he did not challenge the legality of the 1993 sentences, but claimed that he should receive credit against those sentences for time served on the vacated 1985 sentences.
|
|||||
| Layton v. Howard County Bd. of Appeals, No. 1715, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county board of appeals properly found that animal center operators could not operate a wildlife sanctuary under an exception in the Howard County, Md., Animal Control Law (Law) because the amended Law did not operate retrospectively and sufficient factual findings supported the Board's ruling that the operators were not exhibitors under the Law.
|
|||||
| Knoche v. State, No. 574, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 1-213 (2005), allowing non-renewal of a dentist's license for not paying taxes, only applied when his tax liabilities were "undisputed," so he was not denied due process when his license was not renewed without a hearing because he sought no hearing in the Maryland Tax Court.
|
|||||
| Ehrlich v. Perez, No. 137, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under a strict scrutiny standard, the failure of the State to appropriate monies for medical benefits, under Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 15-301(a)(2)(viii), based on alienage, violated Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24 since the State's cost saving reasons were not tailored suitably to serve a compelling state interest.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Llinas, Misc. Docket AG No. 47, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Butler, Misc. Docket AG No. 27, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney who used trust account funds for personal and business matters and failed to maintain funds in trust account to cover checks written for client matters was disbarred for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), 8.1(b), 8.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), Md. R. 16-607 and 16-609, and Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. §§ 10-306 and 10-606.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Md. State Police v. Estate of Leech, No. 17, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 16, 2006, Decided , October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Md. Overpak Corp. v. Mayor of Baltimore, No. 76, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city council's approval of a planned unit development amendment was a "zoning action" subject to judicial review under Md. Ann. Code art. 66B, § 2.09(a)(1)(ii), pursuant to a landowner's petition, because the city council, after receiving notice at a required hearing, approved specific uses for a specific parcel after making statutory findings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
