Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Stephen J. Coffioni v. John H. Doud, III, Esq. Department of Public 410-235-9111 Safety and
Correctional Services 489-00281
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Evelyn O. Cannon John C. Themelis, Jr. Baltimore City
Issues
In this case, after being released from an overnight stay in the Defendant’s Correctional Facility, the plaintiff was not given the coat he had worn on the way in. During his request for his coat, he was led away from the lobby area and punched in the face by a corrections officer. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the State will not
be responsible for its officer’s misconduct where the officer is found to have acted with malice. As a result, the plaintiff in this case argued that the officer who struck his client with little or no provocation acted without malice. At a bench trial, the Court made a ruling that the officer
acted with malice and dismissed the State from the action under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The issue on appeal is whether the defendants met their burden of demonstrated malice under the circumstances presented in the case. The plaintiff notes, among other factors, that the testimony at trial was to the effect that the two had previously been en- gaged in civil discourse; that there had been a misperception on the part of the individual defendant, and that he had “automatically” reacted by punching the plaintiff thereby fracturing the orbit around his eye.
LeilaBijou v.
Adrienne Young-Battle 301-654-0896 490-00182
Richard E. Schimel, Esq. Dog Bite/Ad Damnum
Maureen M. Lamasney Prince George’s County
This is a dog-bite case. The case was tried to a plaintiff’s verdict which exceeded the amount in the ad-damnum clause. Significant post-trial proceedings occurred, includ- ing Motions for a New Trial, Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Remititur, in addition to one prior appeal. At no point in time did the plaintiff move to amend the complaint raising the ad-damnum clause to the amount of the jury award. The question presented to the Court is whether, in the absence of a motion to amend pursuant to MD Rule 2-341(b) prior to the entry of judgment, may the court enter judgment for an amount in excess of the ad-damnum clause.
John C. Dodd, III, Michael J. Kopen, Esq. et al. v. Strategic Management Partners, Inc.
410-822-3900 Breach of Contract
Sidney S. Campen, Jr. Talbot County
An expert witness retained for litigation purposes subse- quently sued the former litigant to recover expert-witness fees. The expert witness was successful at trial and obtained a judgment in excess of $95,000.00. The questions presented on appeal are whether the
Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding fraud in the inducement of the contract. The defendants assert that there was testimony that the expert witness allegedly misled the defendants to believe he had prior experience as an expert. Further, the expert allegedly failed to disclose that he had never been accepted by a Court as an expert witness, and that he had not testified in court as an expert in the past. Among other issues, the defendant also assigns error
to the Court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the factors in Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5, regarding whether a fee is reasonable for ethical purposes, should be applied to the fee claim made in the present case.
54 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