Showing 1 – 10 of 20 results for 1277. Search took 1ms. Revise Search
Posted by: admin on 2007-08-06
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS Negligence, Medical malpractice: Medical malpractice suit was properly dismissed where plaintiff failed to meet condition precedent for suit, that is, a timely certificate of qualified expert stating that the defendant physicians breached the standard of care and that the breach was a proximate cause of the injuries. Carroll v. Konits,…
Posted by: admin on 2009-08-24
U.S. 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Civil Procedure, Class action certification: The district court erred as a matter of law in requiring that plaintiffs seeking class certification for racial bias claims present statistical evidence that met a certain threshold, where their direct evidence alone sufficiently demonstrated common claims of disparate treatment and impact. Brown,…
FMLA covers the flu, 4th Circuit holds
Posted by: admin on 2001-05-16
The aches, pains and fever commonly known as the flu are covered under the Family Medical Leave Act, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.In a 2-1 split, the panel affirmed the decision of a federal judge in West Virginia who ordered AT&T to pay back wages to an employee it had fired…
MOSH Case Puts Burden Back on Employers
Posted by: admin on 2002-05-21
In a contest over a MOSH citation, whether the violation was unforeseeable and unpreventable is an affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof, the Court of Appeals held last month.<br /><br />The decision reverses the Court of Special Appeals, which last year held that the state bore the burden of disproving employee misconduct. While it conflicts with precedent in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it brings Maryland into conformance with most jurisdictions that have considered the issue….
Legal Opinions- U.S. District Court, Maryland
Posted by: admin on 2009-10-13
Consumer Protection Failure to state a claim for individual liability ; BOTTOM LINE : The FTC’s Complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish an enterprise’s fraudulent practices and to show that the enterprise’s officer was aware of and participated in such practices; thus, the officer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against…
Maryland Court of Appeals
Posted by: admin on 2005-01-28
<button><b><font face="arial">Criminal Law</font></b></button><b><i>Double Jeopardy</i></b><b>BOTTOM LINE:</b> Defendant could not be tried for distribution of narcotics after already being found guilty of simple possession of the same drugs at the same time and place.<b>CASE:</b> Jesse Anderson v. State of Maryland, No. 41, September Term, 2004 (filed January 10, 2005) (Judges Bell, Raker, WILNER, Cathell, Harrell, Battaglia & Greene). RecordFax No. 5-0110-20, 21 pages. <b>FACTS:</b> Jesse Anderson was the target of a sting operation conducted by Detectives Clasing, Barnes, and Butler. At 1:55 p.m. on October 1, 2002, Detective Barnes approached Anderson in the 1500 block of Myrtle Avenue and purchased two capsules of heroin from him for $20. Anderson removed the capsules from a cigarette pack he was holding. Five minutes later, Detective Butler approached Anderson, in the same place, and purchased two capsules containing heroin for $20. Those c…
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Posted by: admin on 2002-09-13
<button><b><font face="times">Administrative</font></b></button><b><i>Requirement of exhaustion of remedies</i>BOTTOM LINE:</b> Because local exchange carrier failed to exhaust the Pole Attachment Enforcement Procedure at 47 C.F.R. §1.1412, it could not obtain injunctive relief against utility that unlawfully prevented the carrier from using its utility poles.<b>CASE:</b> Cavalier Telephone, L.L.C. v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., Nos. 01-2135 and 01-2192 (decided Aug. 30, 2002) (Judges WILLIAMS, Traxler & Gregory). RecordFax No. 2-0830-60, 12 pages.<b>COUNSEL:</b> Thomas George Hungar, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Washington, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Perkins, Cavalier Telephone, L.L.C., Richmond, Va., for Appellee.<b>FACTS:</b> Cavalier Telephone, L.L.C. is a competitive local exchange carrier providing telecommunications services to customers in Virginia. Virginia Electric and Power Company is an electric utility with a ne…
Maryland Court of Appeals (12827)
Posted by: admin on 2002-09-27
Criminal Procedure“Knock and talk” procedure<b>BOTTOM LINE:</b> A procedure whereby police knock on a door and ask for permission to enter and search, without specific probable cause or articulable suspicion, does not violate the Fourth Amendment where the defendant consents to the search. <b>CASE:</b> Scott v. State, No. 143, Sept. Term, 2000 (filed Oct. 11, 2001) (Judges WILNER, Cathell, Harrell & Battaglia) (Judges RAKER, Bell & Eldridge dissenting). RecordFax No. 1-1011-21, 45 pages.<b>FACTS:</b> On May 19, 2000, Aaron Scott and his girlfriend, Antonia Hampton, rented a motel room at the Regal Inn Motel in Baltimore County….
Maryland Court of Appeals
Posted by: admin on 2003-01-17
<button><b><font face="times">Family</font></b></button><b><i>Custody award to non-parent</i>BOTTOM LINE:</b> A presumption that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.<b>CASE:</b> Shurupoff v. Vockroth, No. 31, September Term, 2002 (filed Jan. 7, 2003) (Judges Bell, Eldridge, Raker, WILNER, Harrell & Battaglia) (Judge Cathell, concurring in the result). RecordFax No. 3-0107-20, 30 pages.<b>FACTS:</b> Lawrence Shurupoff and Pamela Vockroth met in 1980 and began living together in Maryland. Several years later they moved to Michigan and in 1987 Pamela became pregnant. The couple’s relationship was strained at the time. Pamela moved back to Maryland to live with her parents and subsequently gave birth to a daughter, Kimberly. A year later, Pamela and Kimberly moved into their own apartment but the Vockroths continued to care for Kimberly….
Legal Opinions – 4th Circuit
Posted by: admin on 2009-08-24
Civil Procedure Class action certification BOTTOM LINE: The district court erred as a matter of law in requiring that plaintiffs seeking class certification for racial bias claims present statistical evidence that met a certain threshold, where their direct evidence alone sufficiently demonstrated common claims of disparate treatment and impact. CASE: Brown, et. al. v….