Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch alerts our Amicus Committee about cases important to MTLA and advises members of issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals. To obtain a copy of a brief at nominal cost, please complete the form found at the end of the Appellate Watch and return it to the MTLA office.
Ropewalk Bel Air Properties, LLC
447-02277-06
Case Name/Case # Fred Isennock v.
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Kevin T. Olszewski, Esq. (410) 879-2100
446-011-60 SABND, LLC v. Ross Thomas S. Rand, Jr., Esq.
Construction Litigation (301) 762-9226 Arbitration Agreements
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Maurice W. Baldwin, Jr. Harford County
Dennis Sweeney Howard County
Issues
Whether an officer of a construction company was properly held personally liable under Maryland’s Construction Trust Statute for unpaid sums due to subcontractors. The appellant claims that all funds received for the project were applied to the project, and argues that there should be no personal liability.
Whether an arbitration agreement was enforceable and covered the scope of the issues to be arbitrated. This case involved a dis- pute arising from the appellee’s purchase of a used automobile from the appellant. At the trial level, an arbitration agreement was defeated by the Plaintiff Ross based on two arguments. First, the plaintiff argued that the relevant arbitration agree- ment appeared in a contract between the parties that predated the retail installment sales contract. The trial court found that as a result of the integration clause in the subsequent contract, the arbitration provision in the prior Buyer’s Order was void. Secondly, Plaintiff Ross contended successfully that the arbitra- tion clause found in the Buyer’s Order did not cover the subject matter of the dispute.
Transit Authority v. Myra Jackson
Washington Metro- Carole O’Keeffe, Esq. politan Area
Government Liability
Dwight Jackson Prince George’s County
Whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction that WMATA could not be held liable for discretion- ary governmental acts. This case involved a slip and fall on a large sheet of ice in the parking lot of the Landover Metro Rail Station. The instruction WMATA sought in this case was: “In deciding whether or not WMATA was negligent, you may not find the defendant negligent on any of the following grounds: 1) because you believe its plans or policies were incorrect or inadequate; 2) because you believe that the defendant should have assigned more personnel to treat ice; 3) because you believe that it should have committed more trucks to treatment of ice; 4) because you believe that its employees should have begun work at any particular time; 5) because you believe that its employees should have been assigned to work more hours; 6) because you believe that its personnel vehicles or equipment were employed incorrectly on the date of the incident.” The court refused to give the instruction, the jury returned a verdict of $34,000 and WMATA appealed.
52 Trial Reporter Fall 2007
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60