 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Muhammad, Misc. Docket AG No. 65, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The orders staying and sealing an order disbarring an attorney were dissolved after the federal district and appellate courts determined that there was no basis for removing the petition for disciplinary or remedial action. The order disbarring the attorney was reinstated, effective immediately.
|
|||||
| Cotillo v. Duncan, No. 2859, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly entered with respect to the improper instructions issue; although appellant assumed the risk that the spotters would fail to protect him in the event of a failed lift, appellant did not assume the risk that a spotter had been instructed not to intervene until signaled to do so, even if the spotter perceived danger.
|
|||||
| Phyllis J. Outlaw & Assocs. v. Graham, No. 2535, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A law firm's appeal of an interlocutory order denying a preliminary injunction in its action to recover professional services compensation was moot where the settlement proceeds from the underlying action had already been disbursed. The rejection of the law firm's writ of attachment was appealable but was properly denied on the merits.
|
|||||
| Prison Health Servs. v. Baltimore County, No. 2287, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment declaring that county timely exercised its option to renew when it faxed written renewal amendment to corporation on July 1, 2005, was reversed as contract unambiguously required county to exercise its renewal option no later than June 30, 2005. Phrase "at which time" meant no later than last day of initial term, or June 30, 2005.
|
|||||
| Purich v. Draper Props., No. 9, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a zoning appeal wherein adjacent property owners challenged the grant of a nonconforming use to a property owner to operate an automobile filling station, remand to the zoning board of appeals was necessary to determine whether the nonconforming use was abandoned after a special exception was revoked.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Hodgson, Misc. Docket AG, No. 55, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court found grievance commission established attorney's violations of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and that the ultimate sanction of disbarment was warranted; attorney did not show or even attempt to show that the attorney's misconduct was mitigated, especially since she did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
|
|||||
| Cottman v. State, No. 1, September Term, 2006,,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court erred by affirming petitioner's drug related convictions after the trial court had already granted petitioner a new trial, because the appeal was moot since the trial court retained fundamental jurisdiction to grant a new trial.
|
|||||
| Fields v. State, No. 34, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if the trial court erred in admitting evidence of petitioner's nickname displayed on a television monitor above a bowling lane, to show that petitioner was present there when the relevant shooting took place, the error in admitting that evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the collective effect of the other evidence admitted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
