 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Midlen, Misc. Docket AG No. 4, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, under Md. R. 16-773(b), as the attorney was not denied the right to due process in the original disciplinary proceeding. Further, there was no evidentiary basis for making the suspension concurrent with that imposed in the original proceeding.
|
|||||
| Purnell v. State, No. 210, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence existed to uphold appellant's conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5-602, where expert testimony on the practice of drug dealers in packaging drugs for sale and the amount of cocaine found established the required intent.
|
|||||
| Terumo Med. Corp. v. Greenway, No. 2631, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In arguing it was erroneously denied judgment at end of case, employer in workers' compensation case erred in relying on Md. R. 5-702 to challenge expert testimony as to employee's degree of disability; once the meridian of admissibility had been successfully passed, the evidence was received and would figure into computation of legal sufficiency.
|
|||||
| Head v. State, No. 499, September Term 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of decedent's statement to officer did not violate Confrontation Clause as reasonable observer would have understood decedent was facing ongoing emergency and that purpose of officer's questions was to enable police assistance to meet emergency. No reliability inquiry was necessary for admission as excited utterance and dying declaration.
|
|||||
| Nils, LLC v. Antezana, No. 2733, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied appellants' motion to vacate confessed judgments entered under Md. R. 2-611 on two promissory notes. The notes had been executed voluntarily with the advice of counsel, and even if it was necessary to look to the validity of the underlying debt, a late fee was not a penalty under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-1315.
|
|||||
| State v. Adams, No. 617, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction court properly ordered that defendant be granted a new trial as the decision that Md. Const. Decl. Rights art. 23 violated the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV was correctly applied retrospectively to his trial. Thus, the instructions did not sufficiently inform the jury that its function as judges of the law was limited.
|
|||||
| Stoddard v. State, No. 24, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying petitioner's application for expungement of counts 1-12 and 16-17 of an indictment against him, as those counts were nolle prossed, and because those counts were not committed as part of the same incident from which the remaining counts arose, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 10-107, did not preclude expungement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
