Appellate Decisions Edited by Mark E. Herman
Mark E. Herman, of the Law Office of William G. Koldner, PA of Baltimore is a member of MTLA’s Board of Governors and is a member of its President’s Club as a Supporter. Mr. Herman is certified in trial advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocates. He is also a member of the Baltimore City Bar Association and is an arbiter/mediator on its Fee Arbitration Committee.
Civil Procedure Facsimile Copy
Held: The Court concluded that Mary- land Rule 1-322 does not permit the filing of pleadings or papers via facsimile by di- rect electronic transmission.
Blundon v. Taylor, No. 33, September Term, 1999, filed April 17, 2001. Opinion by Bell, C.J.
Employment
Wrongful Discharge - public policy ex- ception to the at-will employment
“AMFS
doctrine - Maryland does not recognize investigation of possible criminal acts of co-employees as clearly mandated pub- lic policy in support of a wrongful discharge claim.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Wholey, No. 1490, September Term 1999, filed August 29, 2001. Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.
Insurance
Liability of the Agent – broker – special relationship – liability insurance - cov- erage – negligence: In the absence of a special relationship between insured and insurance broker of agent, the insurance broker or agent does not owe an affir-
mative duty to render unsolicited advice to insured regarding adequacy of liabil- ity coverage.
Evelyn E. Sadler v. The Loomis Company, No. 1356, September Term 2000, filed July 5, 2001. Opinion by Hollander, J.
Judgements
Res judicata - concurrent jurisdiction - voluntary dismissal - medical malprac- tice claim proceeded concurrently in Federal and State Court until appellant filed a second voluntary dismissal in fed- eral court. By operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a) (1), the dis- missal constituted an adjudication on the merits in Federal Court. Then, by op- eration of res judicata, the dismissal precluded further litigation of the claim in state court.
Only the Best Medical Experts...”
Speak to one of our staff physicians with just one phone call—at no charge to you.
AMFS staff physicians collaborate to personally review your medical records, formulate opinions, and match experts to your cases from our carefully pre-screened panel of board-certified specialists in your region.
AMFS bridges medicine and law... more than 5,000 specialists in more than 25,000 cases since 1990.
1-800-275-8903
www.amfs.com medicalexperts@amfs.com
An AMA Affiliate[ 44 A physician managed company Trial Reporter AMFS CLIENT
Michael E. Cardoza SAN FRANCISCO TRIAL ATTORNEY
Roane v. Washington County Hospital, et al., No. 153, September Term 2000, Filed March 29, 2001, Opinion by Sonner, J.
Statute of Limitations
Relation back – critical factors in apply- ing the rule of relation back for limitations purposes are (1) who was the intended defendant, (2) whether that party had timely notice, and (3) any un- fair prejudice to that party – notice is timely if it occurs within the period of time permitted for service of process had the party been originally named as a de- fendant.
John E. Williams, Jr. v. Hofmann Balanc- ing Techniques, Ltd., et al., No. 1214, Sept. Term, 2000, filed July 5, 2001. Opinion by Eyler, J.
Torts
Sovereign immunity - Maryland Tort Claims Act - Local Government Tort
Fall 2001
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