 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Baker, NO. 14, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appropriate sanction for an attorney was disbarment where the attorney violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1; the attorney violated Rule 1.4 by not keeping the client informed about the status, or lack thereof, of her case, and the attorney violated Rule 8.1 in failing to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel.
|
|||||
| Lamone v. Capozzi, No. 143, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 10-301.1, which permitted early voting in elections, was found to be unconstitutional and void because early voting was not authorized under Md. Const. art. I, § 1, the constitutional provision that authorized in-person balloting; and early voting was not a form of absentee voting authorized by Md. Const. art. I, § 3.
|
|||||
| Roskelly v. Lamone, No. 141, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a referendum petition under Md. Const. art. XVI, § 3(b) did not have signatures of one percent of the voters when filed by June 1, its proponent did not have a 30-day extension to get the signatures of another two percent of the voters, required to refer legislation to a popular vote, and he had 10 days to seek judicial review of this finding.
|
|||||
| Goldberg v. Boone, No. 21, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action for injuries respondent sustained in the course of undergoing a revisionary mastoidectomy, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to give an informed consent instruction when its content was a correct exposition of the law and there was testimony in the case to generate a triable issue.
|
|||||
| Rollins v. State, No. 1804, September Term, 2004,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inculpatory statements were properly admitted where they were not obtained as result of two-step "question first," interrogation strategy or improper inducement. State was entitled to cross-examine defendant about testimony in another case as record showed he was advised anything he said could be used against him and it was relevant to credibility.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Manger, Misc. Docket AG No. 50, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, whose 48-year practice concentrated primarily on securities, corporate and insurance law, was indefinitely suspended from practice for violating Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.5(a), 3.1, and 8.4(d), after he agreed to take on child custody matter but failed to consult applicable law in preparing petition to set aside or modify consent order.
|
|||||
| Dashiell v. Meeks, No. 27, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court was not required to consider portions of the record from a prior case that it had ordered to be obtained as a supplement to the record in a subsequent case. Therefore, in a legal malpractice action, the appellate court did not abuse its discretion by relying solely on the trial court record instead of the record it ordered.
|
|||||
| J.P. Delphey L.P. v. Mayor of Frederick, No. 41, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was not required to enact an ordinance or any legislation specific to the condemnation of an owner's real property as the city had the power to acquire the property via Md. Ann. Code art. 23A, § 2(b)(24) and did not violate the Open Meetings Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 10-508, when it voted to condemn during a closed session.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Ward, Misc. Docket AG, No. 59, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's highest court found that the attorney's intentional dishonest conduct, which included making misrepresentations to his client and the District of Columbia trial court, along with other violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and a prior disciplinary history warranted the attorney's disbarment from the practice of law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
