 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Steinberg, AG No. 48, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was disbarred where it was shown that he violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.16, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1, and 8.4 as to misrepresentations and failures to communicate regarding two clients and his failure to timely respond to the disciplinary action instituted against him.
|
|||||
| Mayor of Baltimore v. Hart, No. 16, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an alleged injured party sued a city after its police officer, responding to an emergency, hit the party's van after running a red light, a police department general order on how officers were to drive in such situations was admissible, as Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-106 (2006), on the same subject, did not bar the city's stricter regulations.
|
|||||
| Woodfield v. W. River Improvement Ass'n, No. 3, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court had jurisdiction to consider a decision granting a liquor license even though 90 days had elapsed since the administrative record was filed as Md. Ann. Code art. 2B, § 16-101(e)(3) had been amended to delete the default provision. The board's finding that another individual lacked a pecuniary interest in the applicant was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Bereano v. State Ethics Comm'n, No. 2412, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Violation of Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 15-713(1) was not dependent upon the actual performance of lobbying; it was being "engaged for," rather than being "engaged in," lobbying for contingency fee that was precluded. Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 15-405 applied to action under prior agreement in effect after effective date of legislation.
|
|||||
| SDC 214, LLC v. London Towne Prop. Owners Ass'n, No. 94, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where restrictive covenant for subject property stated that property was to be undeveloped, except for educational facilities in conjunction with county board of education, covenant was not violated by building educational building on property. College, which was leasing property from owner, and public school system were to use property together.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Klarman, Misc. Docket AG No. 19, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Baltrotsky v. Kugler, No. 18, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgagor's conduct in causing persistent litigation by filing protracted series of motions and other pleadings directed at voiding foreclosure sale after he defaulted on deed securing his three properties warranted granting of foreclosure purchasers' motion for abatement of interest; his conduct was beyond power of them to control or ameliorate.
|
|||||
| Fritszche v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, No. 73, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, No. 8, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A guardian still had an economic interest in certain real property even after a court's approval of the contract of sale of the same as the sale was not completed at the time the property was destroyed by fire. As such, the insurer was obligated to pay on the claim made by the guardian on a homeowner's insurance policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
