Case # Case Name


65-1399-00 Barbara Huggins v. Joseph Nodelman


Counsel for Appellant Area of Law


Elliott Goldberg 410-580-0717


Motor Vehicle/Evidence


Judge Jurisdiction


Cox/Baltimore County


Issues


Did the trial court err in refusing to give 11 requested voir dire questions to the jury panel bearing on the issue of ju- ror bias, including: “Has any member of the jury panel or anyone you know had to deal with a frivolous lawsuit;” and, “Is any member of the jury panel familiar with Citi- zens for Lawsuit Abuse Reform or similar tort reform groups?”


Also, did the trial court err in allowing the jury to view the videotape deposition of plaintiff’s expert medical wit- ness after refusing to allow the plaintiff to edit defense counsel’s 89 objections and interruptions, which were later withdrawn?


66-1476-00 Alberta Benjamin v. Prince George’s Hospital Center


67-1693-00 Don Brenneman v. State Fire Marshal,


68-1886-00 Francis Gaskill v. Christian David White


Karen McDonald Lopez 810-238-8044


Medical Negligence/ HCA Procedure


Timothy F. Maloney 301-220-2200


Department of State Police Administrative Procedure/ Employment Law


P. Matthew Darby 410-243-9400


Motor Vehicle/ Boulevard Law


69-1902-00 Ira Rollins v. Frederick William Teets, Jr. County Board of Education 410-837-9150


Negligence/Procedure


70-1916-00 Tyra Lee, a minor v. Lawrence Polakoff


Suzanne Shapiro 410-547-0202


Officer/Director Liability – Corporate Law


71-1966-00 Lance Parker Keil v. Mary Beth Keil


72-2191-00 Bettina Morgan v. Tri-County


Landscaping, Inc.


73-2374-00 Ruth Ditto, P.R. v. David Stoneberger


74-2509-00 Isabelle Horowitz v. Town of Easton, et al.


Edward Covahey, Jr. 410-828-9441


Domestic Relations Robert Weinberg


410-234-0100 Negligence/Slip & Fall John O’Neil 301-279-0099 Wrongful Death/Evidence


Harry Walsh, Jr. 410-820-4455


Negligence/Trip and Fall


Unnamed/Talbot County


Wright/Washington County


Cox/Baltimore County


Dwyer/Frederick County


Cannon/ Baltimore City


Stepler/Frederick County


Sothoron/Prince George’s County


Krug/Calvert County Schiff/Prince George’s County


Did the trial court err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in the circuit court that was filed 8 months after service of defendant’s waiver of arbi- tration in the Health Claims Arbitration Office where the delay was caused by unusual and extreme circumstances involving plaintiff’s counsel?


Did the resignation/constructive discharge of appellant deputy fire marshal constitute a waiver of rights under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights?


After the trial court ruled as a matter of law that the fa- vored driver was not guilty of contributory negligence and that the issue of contributory negligence would not be sub- mitted to the jury, did the trial court err in denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence and in allowing the jury to consider plaintiff’s negligence by giv- ing the standard form boulevard law instruction to the jury?


Did the trial court err in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment at the close of plaintiff’s case ruling that the plaintiffs had not established the “instructional standard of care” to be exercised by the school teacher and further rul- ing that an assault on one student by another was an intervening act?


Did the trial court err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment holding that a corporation’s officer is not personally liable for the injuries to the plaintiff in a lead-poisoning case notwithstanding that after transferring the property to a limited partnership, defendant continued as the general partner of the limited partnership and ac- tively participated in the tortious conduct?


Did the trial court err in finding that the parties’ continued cohabitation rendered their marital settlement agreement null and void as a matter of law?


Did the court err in granting defendant’s motion for sum- mary judgment and ruling that defendant (not the property owner), who cleared the snow and ice, could not be held guilty of negligence in removing the snow and ice as a cause of plaintiff’s injuries?


Was there sufficient testimony to support the jury’s verdict of conscious pain and suffering in this wrongful death case? Was there sufficient evidence of “substantial dependency” on the deceased by the deceased’s sister and niece, both of whom were receiving social security disability benefits for psychological injuries at the time of the death?


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Town of Easton, et al., and in hold- ing that the portion of the sidewalk that was 1 + inches high with a crevasse of approximately 3 inches was “open and obvious”?


Fall 2001


Trial Reporter


(Continued on page 22) 21


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