Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: civil procedure

Anna Ho v. Huiling Pang

At the jury trial of this civil case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, each of the three witnesses testified in Chinese. The appellant, Anna Ho (Ms. Ho), the plaintiff below, seeks a new trial because the court required that she elect to testify either in Chinese or in English.

Read More »


In an earlier case, the court entered judgment against Fidelity First Mortgage Company for damages arising out of a fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme. Fidelity sought indemnification and contribution. The court entered judgment in favor of Fidelity. Dan filed a “Motion to Reconsider.” The court denied the motion. Dan argues that the court denied him due process because it did not hold a hearing pursuant to Rule 2-311(f) before denying his motion.

Read More »


Appellant is an inmate at the Jessup Correctional Institution. In April 2013, Jackson’s parole was revoked and 750 diminution credits were rescinded, from which he appealed to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County In this appeal, the only issue before us is whether the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider the previous denial of his fee waiver request.

Read More »

Opinions – 10/24/13: Maryland Court of Appeals

Civil Procedure Preservation for appeal  BOTTOM LINE: Defendant waived right to assert on appeal lack of probable cause for police search leading to defendant’s ultimate arrest and conviction because claim was not raised or decided in circuit court and record ...

Read More »

Opinions – 9/17/12: Maryland Court of Special Appeals

Civil Procedure Motion to withdraw as counsel BOTTOM LINE: The circuit court’s order rejecting an attorney’s request to withdraw as counsel in a civil action is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. CASE: In The Matter of the Motion of ...

Read More »

Opinions – 8/13/12: Maryland Court of Appeals

Civil Procedure Jurisdiction over foreign corporation BOTTOM LINE: Foreign corporations possessed sufficient contacts with the state to support the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them, because the corporations purposefully availed themselves of privilege of conducting activities in forum state, ...

Read More »