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.
Case Name/Case # Gill S. Haddad v.
David Benson 484-2286
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Gill S. Haddad, Esq., Pro Se 301-937-2837
Foreign Judgments/ Collection
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Eric M. Johnson Montgomery County
Issues
Whether recording a District of Columbia judgment in Maryland was proper, given the defendant’s allegation that the judgment was being challenged in the District of Columbia. The underlying case involved a dispute in connection with a construction project. There had been a default judgment in the District of Columbia which was being challenged by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant argues that judgment should not be enrolled in Maryland.
John French v.
Marianne Hymes, et al.
485-00970
Robert S. McCord, Esq. 410-638-3205 Civil Rights/
Police Misconduct
Thomas T. Marshall Harford County
A jury found that the female plaintiff had a gun pointed at her head, her face pushed up against her truck, and was handcuffed too tightly. The law enforcement agency and the officer claimed that “not every push and shove subjects police officers to Section 1983 liability, even if serious injury results.” Further, the defendant’s claim that the nature of the injuries was too trivial to warrant a finding of liability; that the officer’s actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the deputy at issue enjoyed a privilege to use force during an arrest. In a prior appeal, the Court held that there was prob-
able cause to arrest the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that probable cause to arrest authorizes the defendant to commit a “technical battery” in order to make that arrest. As a result, the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s verdict on the Sec- tion 1983 excessive-force count was inconsistent with the law of the case to the effect that there was probable cause for an arrest, and therefore, a privilege to commit battery. In other words, the defendant claims if there was probable cause for an arrest, there can be no battery as a matter of law, and if there can be no battery as a matter of law, there can be no excessive force for Section 1983 purposes.
Tashtra Brogdon,
et al. v. Matthew B. 410-547-0202 Weber, et al. 486-01697
Lead Paint
Bryan S. Brown, Esq. Consumer Protection/
Thomas E. Noel Aletha Handy Baltimore City
Among other issues, the plaintiff challenges the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the grounds that Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act applies only to “con- sumers” and that one must be a “consumer” under the act in order to bring a claim. The plaintiff’s argument rests on language in the act to
the effect that any “person may bring an action to recover for injury or loss sustained by him as the result of a practice prohibited by this title.”
52 Trial Reporter Spring 2008
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66