Appellate Watch (Continued from page 58) Case # Case Name
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
(410) 557-6192 Malicious Prosecution Judge Jurisdiction
377-2239-04 Worsham v. Greenfield, Michael C. Worsham Plipt/ et al.
Harford County Issues
In a malicious prosecution case, can the cause of action be maintained if criminal charges are brought in which the location and amount of alleged damaged property is inaccurate? And, is there an ongoing duty on behalf of the com- plaining witness to withdraw charges for which the witness allegedly discovers there is no sub- stantiation?
378-2540-04 Weddle v. Baltimore City Morris Ramsey Police Department, et al. (410) 332-0684
and C. William Michaels (410) 321-5770 Wrongful Termination Employment Law
Baltimore City Stuart/
Whether a police officer was properly charged, and dismissed from the Force for reflecting “dis- credit” upon the Department by recanting statements made in a complaint against her hus- band for spousal abuse and battery. Also at issue is whether claims for violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and abusive discharge or an administrative appeal from the termination under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights is the appropriate remedy in this case.
379-0032-05 Rubinton v. Choby Louis P. Tanko
(410) 269-6255 Civil Procedure
Judge not listed
Did the Trial Court err in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction where a dentist actively advertises in the Maryland Yellow Pages, accepts referrals of Maryland citizens from a Maryland based PPO, and derives a substantial portion of her income from Maryland residents? The case also presents the issue of whether or not the trial court should have permitted the Appellant to conduct discovery prior to ruling on the Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
380-2086-04 Burger et al. v. Breichner, et al. Robert J. Thompson
Civil Procedure/ Summary Judgment
and J. Calvin Jenkins, Jr. Washington (410) 296-6822
Boone/ County
In a case where the Court specifically found, “Plaintiffs have shown there is a material fact in dispute,” was it proper to grant summary judg- ment? And, prior to the grant of summary judgment, should the party against whom judg- ment was granted have been permitted additional discovery in order to address the is- sue?
Harry A. Milman, Ph.D.
ToxNetwork.com
Consulting in Toxicology, Carcinogenesis, Pharmacology, and Pharmacy Standard of Care
14317 Bauer Drive Rockville, MD 20853
www.toxnetwork.com
44
Phone: 301-871-6715 Fax: 301-871-5586
e-mail:
hmilman@toxnetwork.com Trial Reporter Fall 2005
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