<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Maryland Daily Record &#187; administrative law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thedailyrecord.com/tag/administrative-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thedailyrecord.com</link>
	<description>Maryland&#039;s trusted source for business and legal news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 02:01:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Law digest: 9/4/12&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/09/03/law-digest-9412/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/09/03/law-digest-9412/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private cause of action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=222739</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/09/03/law-digest-9412/&amp;text=Law digest: 9/4/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law, Private cause of action: TP §21-809, which authorizes the use of speed monitoring systems on certain roads, does not provide an express or implied private cause of action in tort.Baker v. Montgomery County, No. 124, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0821-22, 28 pages. Civil Procedure, Court rules: In wife’s appeal of child custody [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/09/03/law-digest-9412/&amp;text=Law digest: 9/4/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/09/03/law-digest-9412/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 7/23/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/22/opinions-72312-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/22/opinions-72312-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th u.s. circuit court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=219743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/22/opinions-72312-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 7/23/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law FINRA Arbitration BOTTOM LINE: As a result of significant overlap in personnel and resource utilization between a financial adviser’s former and current investment firms, the adviser’s current firm “indirectly controlled” the adviser, making them “associated persons”; therefore, the investors’ dispute with the adviser’s current firm was covered by the FINRA Code of Arbitration [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/22/opinions-72312-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 7/23/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/22/opinions-72312-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law digest: 7/9/12&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/law-digest-7912/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/law-digest-7912/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Credit Services Businesses Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discharge of counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[driver's license suspension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petition for special election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statute of limitations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=218755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/law-digest-7912/&amp;text=Law digest: 7/9/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law, Driver’s license suspension: In overturning a driver’s license suspension based on driving while intoxicated, the circuit court improperly ruled that the officer had to indicate, on the Motor Vehicle Administration form, the reasonable grounds for the underlying stop that led to the suspension. Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lipella, No. 80, Sept. Term, 2010. [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/law-digest-7912/&amp;text=Law digest: 7/9/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/law-digest-7912/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 7/9/12: Maryland Court of Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/opinions-7912-maryland-court-of-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/opinions-7912-maryland-court-of-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Tort Claims Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lipella]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=218757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/opinions-7912-maryland-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 7/9/12: Maryland Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law Driver’s license suspension BOTTOM LINE: In overturning a driver’s license suspension based on driving while intoxicated, the circuit court improperly ruled that the officer had to indicate, on the Motor Vehicle Administration form, the reasonable grounds for the underlying stop that led to the suspension. CASE: Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lipella, No. 80, [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/opinions-7912-maryland-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 7/9/12: Maryland Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/07/08/opinions-7912-maryland-court-of-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law digest: 6/11/12&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/10/law-digest-61112/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/10/law-digest-61112/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th u.s. circuit court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeal from abuse or neglect findings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Handgun permit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preservation of sufficiency of evidence challenge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=216970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/10/law-digest-61112/&amp;text=Law digest: 6/11/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS Administrative Law, Appeal from abuse or neglect findings: Person accused of, but not found responsible for, child abuse or neglect has right to appeal when investigation by local department of social services finds that child abuse allegations are “unsubstantiated.” Department of Human Resources v. Hayward, No. 131, Sept. Term, 2007. RecordFax [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/10/law-digest-61112/&amp;text=Law digest: 6/11/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/10/law-digest-61112/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 22:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court of Special Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child neglect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of special appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=215703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law Child neglect BOTTOM LINE: Although there was no gap in custody between the time a disabled teenager’s caregivers refused to let him return home from school and the time the Department of Social Services placed him in foster care, the administrative law judge was legally incorrect in ruling that the child was never [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 22:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th u.s. circuit court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/?p=215701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law Medicare coverage BOTTOM LINE: Secretary of Health and Human Services properly used the adjudicative process to create a policy denying Medicare coverage for medical device. CASE: Almy v. Sebelius, No. 10-2241 (filed April 26, 2012) (Judges WILKINSON, Gregory &#38; Keenan). RecordFax No. 12-0426-60, 25 pages. COUNSEL: Robert Lloyd Roth, Hooper, Lundy &#38; Bookman, [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 5/21/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/05/20/opinions-52112-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 3/5/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 23:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court of Special Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of special appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 3/5/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law Line-of-Duty Disability Benefits BOTTOM LINE: Preexisting degenerative disc disease did not disqualify police officer from line-of-duty disability due to an injury sustained while working in the line of duty, because officer otherwise met the statutory requirements for such disability under the city code. CASE: Employees’ Retirement System of City of Baltimore v. Dorsey, [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 3/5/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/03/04/opinions-3512-maryland-court-of-special-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opinions &#8211; 2/6/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th u.s. circuit court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asylum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil commitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equal Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective sweep of residence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 2/6/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
Administrative Law Civil commitment BOTTOM LINE: The U.S. District Court did not err in finding that the government failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was “a sexually dangerous person,”; the court reasonably found one expert’s opinion to be more credible than the others offered as to whether defendant would have serious [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/&amp;text=Opinions &#8211; 2/6/12: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/opinions-2612-4th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law digest: 2/6/12&#160;</title>
		<link>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/</link>
		<comments>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daily Record Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th u.s. circuit court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil commitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation and false light]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equal Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion to correct illegal sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective sweep of residence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secondary Mortgage Loan Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/&amp;text=Law digest: 2/6/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS Commercial Law, Secondary Mortgage Loan Law: The Secondary Mortgage Loan Law does not restrict a mortgage lender to a single loan origination fee, as long as the aggregate fees charged and collected do not exceed the statutory maximum set forth in CL §12–405 and lenders are only required by the SMLL [...]
<div class="twitterbutton" style="float: right; padding-left: 5px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/&amp;text=Law digest: 2/6/12&nbsp;<span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-paywall/images/key.gif" border=0/></span>&amp;via=&amp;related=DolcePixel"><img align="right" src="http://thedailyrecord.com/wp-content/plugins//easy-twitter-button/i/buttons/en/tweetn.png" style="border: none;" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thedailyrecord.com/2012/02/05/law-digest-2612/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
