 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. State, No. 2273, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-307, set forth permissive inference allowing, but requiring, trier of fact to find defendant was driving under influence of alcohol, and therefore did not offend due process. Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-902(a)(2) did not embody unconstitutional mandatory presumption but placed burden on State to prove BAC.
|
|||||
| Jules v. State, Nos. 2035 & 2377, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges of child sexual abuse against him based on a violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial as, though the 16-month delay triggered analysis by the court, defendant consented to a continuance beyond the 180-day period set forth in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-103.
|
|||||
| Sprenger v. PSC, No. 2033, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners could not seek a declaratory judgment invalidating an order of the Public Service Commission because (1) they had an alternate remedy, under Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. Cos. § 3-202, and (2) they had sought such a remedy in another court, and that court's decision was on appeal, so their declaratory judgment petition was duplicative.
|
|||||
| City of Balt. Dev. Corp. v. Carmel Realty Assocs., No. 14, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The City of Baltimore Development Corporation was deemed a public body for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 10-501-10-512, as well as was found to be an instrumentality of the City and, therefore, subject to Maryland's Public Information Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 10-602-10-628.
|
|||||
| Janice M. v. Margaret K., No. 01, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because third party met requirements of de facto parent, she was entitled to visitation with her de facto daughter. She was not entitled to custody because she did not present sufficient evidence to establish that custody dispute presented exceptional circumstances and that it was not in child's best interest to be in her legal parent's custody.
|
|||||
| Marks v. Kahlor, No. 01, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the adoptive mother and former partner were in a domestic partnership when the child was adopted, the adoptive mother's motion for judgment under Md. R. 2-519(b) on the issue of custody was properly granted. The former partner failed to satisfy her burden to show the adoptive mother's unfitness or exceptional circumstances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
