COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
Commercial Law, Damages: In a suit over deceptive trade practices, because plaintiff received the relief he requested on his individual claims, his class action suit was moot and, as a matter of law, plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages or injunctive relief. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd, No. 1767, Sept. Term, 2008. RecordFax No. 11-0831-01, 26 pages.
Criminal Law, Theft: Juvenile, who was found not guilty of “punching out” car’s ignition, could not be found guilty of theft since “punching out” was a necessary factual component of the theft charge. In re Antonette H., No. 0944, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0831-03, 23 pages.
U.S. 4th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Civil Procedure, Preliminary injunction: Where retirees appealed denial of motion for a preliminary injunction seeking continuation of certain healthcare benefits, judgment of the district court affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Company, No. 10-1759. RecordFax No. 11-0822-60, 10 pages.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MARYLAND
Administrative Law, Import restrictions: Coin importer’s complaint, challenging the legality of import restrictions imposed on certain ancient coins under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, No. CCB–10–322. RecordFax No. 11-0808-40, 53 pages.
Criminal Procedure, Reasonable expectation of privacy: Real time, precise location data generated by a cell phone was entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus was subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections and the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Location Information of a Specified Wireless Telephone, Civil No. 10-2188. RecordFax No. 11-0803-40, 139 pages.
Labor & Employment, Protected activities under Fair Claims Act: Former employee, whose employment was terminated following his questioning of the quality and safety of certain devices manufactured by employer company, was not entitled to summary judgment on his claims of retaliation for a protected activity under the Fair Claims Act. Glynn v. Impact Science & Technology, Inc., No. JFM-07-1160. RecordFax No. 11-0825-40, 77 pages.