Case # Case Name 685
739 745
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
Adams t/a Adams Construction v. Stephens Home Improvement Contract
Chaires v. Chevy Chase Bank Edward J. Lilly/Peter Angelos 410-649-2000
Commercial Transactions
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Robert D. Stephan, Sr.
757
Brian Bolton 410-659-7700 Weinstein/ Contract Action
Flynn v. Glen Reichardt, et al Robert Swick 202-842-0300
Montgomery County
Thompson/
Employment Law/Immunity Montgomery County
825 894 1091 Rodriguez v. Sykes Nerenberg v. Rica at Southern Maryland Callahan v. Bowers, Personal Representative
William Zifchak 301-627-5500 Lombardi/Prince Motor Vehicle
George’s County
Michael Kator 202-898-4800 Employment Discrimination
Gerald Ueckermann, Jr. 301-572-7900 Negligence
Prince George’s County
Quarles/ Baltimore City
Judge Jurisdiction
Benjamin Lipsitz 410-484-3050 Silkworth/Anne Arundel County
Lombardi/Prince George’s County
Issues
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Adams for lack of a Maryland Home Improvement license and in allowing Stephens to enjoy an unjust enrichment by benefiting without payment for Adams’ work?
Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s real estate settlement practices violated the Maryland Annotated Code on the basis that Maryland law was preempted by federal statutes?
Prudential determined that plaintiff’s son no longer needed treatment in a mental health facility. Did the trial court err in holding that plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract could be submitted to the jury without medical evidence of the need for continued in-patient medical care?
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, students and parents falsely alleged sexual harassment in order to cause plaintiff to be terminated from his employment as a tenured high school teacher and coach. Did the trial court err when it ruled that the defendants are immune from suit on a “quasi judicial proceeding” basis, even where there are allegations of malice.
Plaintiff pedestrian recovered $1 million+ (reduced to the ad damnum). Did the trial court err in failing to instruct on the issue of contributory negligence?
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on behalf of the employer finding that the employer had ar- ticulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its termination?
Callahan, a special police officer employed by Giant, fatally shot and injured a Giant Food employee while apprehend- ing a fleeing suspected shoplifter. Did the trial court err in holding that Callahan is not entitled to Qualified Public Official Immunity for negligent acts committed in his ca- pacity as a special police officer and suggesting to plaintiffs that they amend their Complaint to allege gross negligence to avoid summary judgment?
1112
Peninsula Regional Medical Donald Devries, Jr. 410-783-4000 Davis/Wicomico Center, et al. v. OHIC Insurance Company
Negligent Failure to Settle County 1311 1428
Bruce Reed v. All My Sons Steven Allen 301-309-9350 Moving & Storage Company Civil Procedure
The Baltimore Sun Company, Mary Craig 410-769-9200 et al. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
1515 Griesi v. Atlantic General Hospital Corporation
Stepler/Frederick County
Quarles/Baltimore City
Suzanne Tsintolas 301-421-0980 Eschenburg/ Employment/Negligent Misrepresentation
Did the trial court err in granting OHIC’s Motion to Dis- miss on the ground that under Maryland law, an action for bad-faith failure to settle does not lie in the absence of an excess judgment in a case where the defendant hospital, fear- ing an excess judgment, settled and sued its liability insurer for bad-faith?
In ruling on a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, did the trial court err when it set aside a long-standing default judg- ment on the basis of the merits of the case versus a finding of mistake or irregularity?
Are appellants, a newspaper and reporter, entitled to infor- mation pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act as to the amount paid by the city to settle a wrongful death action when the city has entered into a confidentiality agree- ment?
Worcester County
5129 A&B Marine Trucking, Inc. Joseph Zauner, III 410-962-0500 Silkworth/Anne v. Keith E. Taylor
Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s Complaint against defendant for withdrawing its offer of employment after acceptance on the basis that no tort duty could inde- pendently exist outside the employee-at-will contract relationship.
Arundel County
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the claimant, Taylor, holding that he was regularly employed in Maryland for purposes of workers’ compensa- tion benefits when he was only in Maryland for a total of 4 days, 3 of which listed him as “off-duty”?
36
Trial Reporter
Winter 2000
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