Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest: 6/27/11


Administrative Law, Police disability benefits: Special disability benefits were properly denied to state police trooper who was diagnosed with major depressive disorder as a result of disciplinary administrative proceedings instituted against him following his knowing failure to comply with police procedures. Thomas v. State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland, No. 51, Sept. Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 11-0617-20.


Evidence, Psychotherapist-patient privilege: Trial court erroneously admitted evidence that related to defendant’s treatment or diagnosis because such evidence was protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Ali v. State, No. 518, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0601-01.


Civil Procedure, Choice of law: Where object was erroneously left inside plaintiff’s body during surgery in the state of Virginia, plaintiff’s injury occurred in the state of Virginia and Virginia law applied to bar plaintiff’s strict liability claims against defendants. Williams v. Gyrus Acmi, Inc., Civil No. CCB-11-323. RecordFax No. 11-0609-40.

Civil Procedure, Motion to transfer: Where breach of contract case could have originally been brought in the Northern District of Georgia and where that district would be more convenient to several of the witnesses, defendant’s motion to transfer was granted because transfer would serve the interests of justice. Elliot AmQuip, LLC v. Bay Electric Co., Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-10-3598). RecordFax No. 11-0602-40.

Civil Procedure, Motion to transfer: In a subpoena-enforcement action, it was within the discretion of the district court that issued the subpoena as to whether to grant a transfer request made by a non-party who was subject to the subpoena. In re Subpoena of American Nurses Association (Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., No. 09–CV–379 (W.D.Pa.))., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00409-AW. RecordFax No. 11-0603-40.

Civil Procedure, Summary judgment: In case involving defendants’ auctioned sale of plaintiffs’ repossessed vehicles and defendants’ alleged violation of the notice requirements of Maryland’s Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, a delay in ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not justified on the basis of plaintiffs’ pending discovery requests. Scott v. Nuvell Financial Services, LLC v. GMAC, Inc., Civil Nos. JFM-09-3110. RecordFax No. 11-0607-40.