This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Case # Case Name 353


Counsel for Appellant Area of Law


Pfeiffer v. Drenner


361 William Harkins v. PMS Parking, Inc.


366


Rochkind v. Curtis Bailey, et al.


Judge Jurisdiction


Saul Kerpelman 410-547-0202 Quarles/Baltimore Lead Paint


City


Joseph T. Simon 215-564-5100 Quarles/Baltimore Civil Procedure


City


Julie Janofsky 410-659-9390 Lead Paint Poisoning


Smith/ Baltimore City Issues


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against plaintiffs holding that the defendant had no notice of a lead paint hazard and that the claims did not fall under the Mary- land Consumer Protection Act?


Was summary judgment appropriate when plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel did not receive notice of the summary judgment, was not present at the scheduled hearing, when discovery was incomplete, and when the record contained factual disputes?


In a lead paint case, did the trial court err in ruling that the Consumer Protection Act applied to the shareholder of the corporation that owned a residential premises and in ruling that the shareholder was personally liable even when there was no direct participation in any of the alleged tortious acts?


402 409


Joswick, et ux v. Chesapeake Andrea G. Green 302-366-0513 Carr/Harford Mobile Homes, Inc.


Civil Procedure/UCC Insurance & Subrogation County


Victor Riemer v. Columbia Paul Bland, Jr. 202-797-8600 Dudley/Howard Medical Health Plan


County


436 Molla v. Dara Chapman, et al.


441 Stanley E. Baritz 301-340-3003 Scrivener/


Civil Procedure/Motor Vehicle Montgomery County


4910 Moorland Associates, Patrick McKeever 301-762-5212 Ferretti/ Inc. v. Alco Construction, Inc. Home Improvement Statute Montgomery County


450 Morris v. The May Department Stores


Christopher Teras 202-328-1000 Shephard/Prince Slip & Fall


George’s County


Did the trial court err in ruling that the discovery rule and/ or maturation of damages did not apply to the four-year UCC limitation period in §2-725 to defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment?


Did the trial court err in ruling that under the Maryland HMO Act, Columbia Medical Health Plan, an HMO, may pursue subrogation rights?


Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on the basis of the statute of limitations where the Amended Complaint added the proper identity of the defendant’s vehicle’s driver? (In the original Complaint, the plaintiff identified the vehicle’s owner as the driver.)


Did the trial court err in holding that the plaintiff was not a home improvement contractor under the Maryland Home Improvement Act rendering a $98,000 lien unenforceable.


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on a slip and fall case where plaintiff ’s affidavits indicated that the defendant, Hecht Co., permitted patrons to bring food into the store, provided no receptacles for trash or other waste products, and had a policy whereby housekeeping would inspect the floor only 2 times a day, which included once before the store opened.


461 497 503 Kramer v. Brocato


Judith A. Geduldig, et al. v. David B Posner, et al.


Samester Apartments Ltd.


Jay Shuster 410-242-6600 Negligence/Civil Procedure


Lombardi/Prince George’s County


Shale D. Stiller 410-539-2530 Hennegan/ Probate/Procedure


James E. Carbine 410-385-5300 Quarles/ Ptnshp. v. James S. Maffitt, Civil Procedure/


Anderson Coe & King, LLP, Professional Negligence et al.


539 Hageage v. Fouch Marvin Liss 202-237-6300


Chapin/ Montgomery County


Baltimore City Baltimore County


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendant in a case where plaintiff, when leaving a customer’s home, tripped in a drainage hole “6 to 8 inches deep and about 12 inches across over top a water meter”?


Appellants filed a will caveat alleging undue influence by the appellee, David B. Posner, M.D. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Posner prior to trial on the caveat proceeding?


With respect to this professional negligence claim, did the trial court err in granting defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations when plaintiff belatedly discovered a conflict of interest and other allega- tions of negligence against the defendants?


Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict against the plaintiff, an UPS truck driver, who was rear-ended by the defendant after the plaintiff’s truck had been stopped in a “No Parking” zone with all emergency lights activated for 5 minutes? The court ruled that the plaintiff either assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle was stopped in violation of a motor ve- hicle statute.


Winter 2000


Trial Reporter


35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48