Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest: 8/1/11

COURT OF APPEALS

Administrative Law, Jurisdiction of Maryland Insurance Administration: The Maryland Insurance Administration possesses primary jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim that defendant overcharged him for title insurance, and, therefore, plaintiff must pursue his claim initially through an administrative adjudication process. Carter v. Harrington Title & Escrow, LLC, No. 116, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0714-21.

Criminal Law, Legislative immunity: Dismissal of the indictment against the councilwoman was appropriate because she was entitled to legislative immunity. State v. Holton, No. 91, Sept. Term 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0713-21.

Criminal Procedure, Miranda rights: An interrogating detective’s failure to cease all questioning after defendant said, “You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this,” constituted a violation of defendant’s Miranda rights. Ballard v. State, No. 73, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0712-21.

MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Criminal Law, Plea agreements: Plea agreement, under which defendant pleaded guilty to rape in exchange for the state entering a nolle prosequi to charges of burglary and first-degree sexual offense, did not preclude state from subsequently prosecuting defendant for uncharged offenses. Buzbee v. State, No. 0170, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0711-02.

Criminal Procedure, Scope of cross-examination: Although the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a state’s witness regarding any expectation of leniency in return for his testimony, any error was harmless, given the strong evidence against defendant and the limited impact the cross-examination likely would have had. Dionas v. State, No. 1742 Sept., Term 2009. RecordFax No. 11-0701-01.

U.S. FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Constitutional Law, Qualified immunity: Although it was clearly established that intrusive prison employee searches require reasonable suspicion, it was far from clear that the body-scanning devices at issue here could not meet that standard. Braun, et al., v. Maynard, et al., No. 10-1401. RecordFax No. 11-0721-60.