 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eastside Vend Distribs. v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., No. 33, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a distributor's motion for a preliminary injunction since the motion sought to reinstate a rebate contract that had terminated and injunctive relief was a preventative and protective remedy, aimed at future acts to maintain the status quo, and was not intended to redress past wrongs.
|
|||||
| Evans v. State, Nos. 107, 123, 124, September Term, 2005, No. 122, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denials of defendant's postconviction motions were affirmed because his complaints were not cognizable in a motion under Md. R. 4-345(a) to correct an illegal sentence. However, the case was remanded to enjoin the enforcement of the execution protocols of the Maryland Division of Corrections until the protocols were properly adopted as regulations.
|
|||||
| Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Rees, Misc. Docket AG NO. 49, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for thirty days for withdrawing part of a retainer fee from her escrow account before earning the fee in violation of Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) and Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 10-306 and for making a billing error that resulted in a refund being owed to the clients under Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(b) and 1.16(d).
|
|||||
| Daniels v. State, No. 223, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment finding appellant guilty as to two counts of first-degree murder was affirmed; the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress because appellant's admission to the police that she was in sole possession of the green minivan at the time of the murders was not the product of a deliberate delay to obtain same.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 2130, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in refusing defendant's request to inspect a search warrant issued for the residence, car, and person of a confidential informant who implicated defendant where defendant lacked standing to challenge any statement contained therein, his Brady argument was not preserved for review, and an in camera review was conducted.
|
|||||
| Max's of Camden Yards, L.L.C. v. A.C. Bev., Inc., No. 423, September Term, 2006,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court properly dismissed an indemnification claim by a restaurant, which was the passively negligent party, against a beverage company, which was the actively negligent party, as the restaurant could not recover the attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending a patron's action, nor the fees and costs incurred in seeking indemnification.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Subsequent Injury Fund, No. 312, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly affirmed decision of workers' compensation commission for Subsequent Injury Fund after claimant sought to assert a claim against it following settlement of her claim that workers' compensation commission approved; plain language of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-722(d)(2) precluded claim against it following settlement.
|
|||||
| Singfield v. State, No. 386, September Term 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder and other crimes was reversed and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court erred by failing to inform the jurors during voir dire that the murder was committed with a handgun or any kind of weapon, and thus failed to determine whether any juror had a bias concerning handguns.
|
|||||
| Wilbon v. Hunsicker, No. 779, September Term, 2005,
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND, December 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly denied motion of police officers to dismiss tort suit against them by daughter of deceased suspect because daughter did not strictly or substantially comply with the notice requirement under the Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-304, and she did not show good cause to justify waiver.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
