 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conaway v. Deane, No. 44, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a challenge to the denial of marriage licenses to certain same-sex couples, the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure in which children were born was found to be related reasonably to the means employed by Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 2-201.
|
|||||
| Anderson Adventures, LLC v. Sam & Murphy, Inc., No. 1343, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reliance on "as is" provision in management agreement relating to sale of restaurant was error, as said agreement made seller was responsible to ensuring equipment was "sufficient" for operation of restaurant and purchase agreement made seller liable for repair or replacement of equipment not working or not in compliance with codes and regulations.
|
|||||
| Holmes v. State, No. 140, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former inmate was not entitled to a writ of coram nobis invalidating a 1992 guilty plea. Because he had not sought leave to appeal after pleading guilty and having been informed of his right to seek such leave, a presumption arose that he had waived his right to seek a writ of error coram nobis, and he had not rebutted the presumption.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Kline, Misc. Docket AG No. 22, September Term, 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Wendelburg, Misc. Docket AG No. 17, September Term, 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bittinger v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 1090, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action under FELA, employer was properly allowed to cross-examine employee about prior FELA claims because the evidence was relevant to issue of damages and was not unfairly prejudicial. Failure to give requested jury instructions was not error, as they either did not correctly state law or were fairly covered by the instructions actually given.
|
|||||
| Jennifer v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Serv., No. 426, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sundry Claims Board Act, Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. §§ 10-301 to 310, was exclusive remedy for inmate because injury, inflicted by fellow prisoner while two worked together, arose out of employment; inmate would not have suffered injury but for fact that conditions and obligations of employment placed inmate in position where inmate was injured.
|
|||||
| Salerian v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, No.624, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, September 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Forensic evaluation of defendant in federal espionage case amounted to practice of medicine and thus, psychiatrist's failure to maintain confidences by disclosing information to defendant's wife and media amounted to immoral or unethical conduct under Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 14-404(a)(3), and "moral imperative" exception was not applicable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
