 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Brown, No. 1572, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An ALJ affirming a denial of an applicant's request for services under the Older Adults Waiver Program used the wrong standard because Md. Code Ann., Health General § 15-132(a)(9) (2005) only mandated that the applicant need health related care exceeding room and board at least five days in a seven-day period that was available from institutions.
|
|||||
| Gourdine v. Crews, No. 1190, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for drug manufacturer in widow's suit seeking damages from fatal traffic accident caused when a user of manufacturer's drugs suffered an insulin induced seizure was proper because, under learned intermediary doctrine, drug manufacturer had no duty to warn a nonuser such as the decedent of a drug's possible adverse effects.
|
|||||
| Haney v. Gregory, No. 2134, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Md. R. 2-520(e) required substantial compliance with its requirement that party object promptly after contested jury instruction was given; thus, although appellant objected before instruction was given, substantial compliance was found as objection to emergency instruction was clear and was not required to allow trial court to correct any error.
|
|||||
| Hearn v. Hearn, No. 2761, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.306(b), 838.625 provided that a former wife's share of her former husband's federal pension was calculated based on the gross annuity, the husband should have been allowed to introduce parol evidence to show that the parties intended the calculations to be based on the net annuity and to reform the consent decree.
|
|||||
| In re Marcalus, Misc. AG Docket No 41, September Term 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Assocs., No. 20, September Term 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Montgomery County, Md., Code § 27-12, precluded landlords from refusing to rent apartments to otherwise qualified applicants solely because they proposed to use Federal Housing Choice Vouchers Program, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437f, vouchers. The ordinance was not preempted under either U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, or U.S. Const. art. I. § 8, cl. 1.
|
|||||
| Talbot County v. Town of Oxford, No. 1509, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, November 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of Natural Resources, Critical Areas Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, accepted and processed bill within time required by Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. § 8-1809(o)(1) as county failed to prove that action was not taken within 90 days of acceptance. Commission acted within legal boundaries in declining to approve bill.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, No. 4, September Term 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affirmance of trial court's partial summary judgment grant for real estate closing company on its unjust enrichment claim against property seller was error; whether real estate closing company conferred benefit upon property seller, whether she knew of or appreciated benefit, and whether equities favored it had to be decided by the trier of fact.
|
|||||
| Olde Severna Park Improvement Ass'n v. Gunby, No. 37, September Term, 2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A developer's notation on a plat that there was to be no dedication to the public meant that the developer retained riparian rights. Thus, when the developer later conveyed waterfront property in fee simple, respondents' predecessor in title received what the developer possessed, which included the riparian rights appurtenant to the land conveyed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
