Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Robert Cochran, et al. Edward J. Brown, Esq. v. Griffith Energy Services, Inc. 487-215
301-762-7770 Torts/Fraud
Judge/ Jurisdiction
John H. McDowell Washington County
Issues
This case involves the attempted delivery of fuel oil to the plaintiff’s home. In the process of delivering the oil, the defendant is alleged to have created a large oil spill in the plaintiff’s basement. Although the plaintiff prevailed at trial, the plaintiff appealed the pre-trial dismissal of certain claims. Among the claims dismissed prior to trial was a fraud
count. The fraud count was based on alleged misrepre- sentation from the defendant during the pendency of the litigation. Specifically, the defendant is alleged to have rep- resented that its testing showed that the air in the home was safe despite a 300-percent increase in the levels of a known carcinogen, which is particularly dangerous to children. The plaintiffs allege that defendants were aware of the presence of children in the home. In dismissing the fraud count, the court found, in part,
that the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on any representa- tion made during the litigation by the defendants, and that any such representation was “mere puffery” in the context of settlement negotiations rather than actionable fraud. The plaintiff’s counter was that a known carcinogen was allegedly falsely hidden, and the test results showing its existence were allegedly misrepresented to the plaintiff to the detriment of the plaintiff’s health. Therefore, the plaintiff alleges that its fraud count should have survived dispositive motions.
Peggy Chichester et al. v.
Jay P. Szymkowicz, Esq. 202-862-8500
Coordinating Group Open Meetings Act/ 488-289
Attorneys Fees
Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Prince George’s County
The defendant is a public body established to monitor traf- fic plans for events at FedExField. This case involves the October 2000 decision by the coordinating group to restrict pedestrian access between Landover Mall and FedExField on event days. The plaintiff successfully sued under the Open Meetings Act as a result of the fact that the coordinating group did not provide public notice of at least two of its meetings. The plaintiff sought attorney’s fees under the Act and submitted the required paperwork. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the Circuit Court erred in establishing a base-line, attorney’s fee rate of $150.00 per hour. The plaintiff notes that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland allows fees in the range from $200.00 to $275.00 per hour. The second issue raised on appeal was whether the Circuit Court erred in failing to award attorney’s fees for the prosecution of the fee request as well as the fees spent appealing the fee award.
Spring 2008
Trial Reporter
53
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