Case # Case Name 213-2588-02 Janet Smith, et al v
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
Alan Hilliard Legum
City of Baltimore, Maryland (410) 263-3001 Motor Vehicle Accident/ Constructive Notice to the City
Judge Jurisdiction Allison/Baltimore City Issues
Did the trial court err in granting Summary Judgment to the City of Baltimore on a claim arising out of a defective pedestrian control device that was admittedly malfunction- ing in which a pedestrian was caught in the roadway and struck by a motorist? The Court found “no constructive notice” even though the city had no inspection or mainte- nance program for pedestrian signals in effect and that all repairs and/or maintenance were performed on a “com- plaint-driven” basis.
214-2606-02 Philip Weintraub v B.Z. Matthew B. Ruble Keilani and Eccetts, Ltd.
(301) 698-5000
Arbitration/Stay of Proceedings
215-2615-02 Carmen D. Tidler v Mary Ellen Niles Montgomery County, Maryland
(410) 760-9000
Employer/Employee/ Arbitration w/out Consent
216-2708-02 James F. Arter, Father nd Next Friend of
John F. Calabrese (301) 699-1400
Laura E. Arter, a Minor v Negligence/ Glen Strachan
Summary Judgment Nalley/ Charles County Rowan/ Montgomery County
Dwyer/Frederick County
Did the trial court err in denying a stay of arbitration pro- ceeding that found against Appellant who had not personally signed any agreement to arbitrate the claims asserted against him (although Appellant is president of a corporation that had agreed to arbitration with AAA)?
Did the trial court err in dismissing county attorney Tidler’s Writ of Mandamus holding that the Montgomery County Council can decide that appeals from the Montgomery County Disability Arbitration Board will be governed by the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act even though the employee never agreed to arbitration of the dispute?
Did the trial court err in granting Summary Judgment for the establishment, My Brother’s Place, a “Christian coffee- house” which provided bands and dancing and security for patrons from ages eighteen (18) to ten (10) and under? The court held that there was no legal duty with respect to an assault on a 13-year-old patron who was taken outside of the premises by a 20-year old in plain view of the secu- rity guards.
(Continued on page 38)
36
Trial Reporter
Summer 2003
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56