Case Name/Case # Yvonne Gibson v.
Shawn Mayo 549-2932
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Bryan A. Levitt, Esq.
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues
The appellant was allegedly assaulted by a Baltimore City police officer employing excessive force. Very shortly thereafter, the appellant was in touch with the officer’s superiors and provided the internal affairs division of the Baltimore City Police Department full details regarding the incident including her medical records and other pertinent documentation. Thereafter, the appellant filed suit, but did not give prior
notice of her claim pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act. The appellant notes that such notice in this case was a mere formality as the department itself had been aware of her claims the supporting facts and the relevant documentation well within the 180 day notice period of the Local Government Tort Claims Act. The appellant further notes that an investigation was
actually performed by the internal affairs division and thus the purpose of the act - to allow for a timely investigation - was met. Nevertheless, the Circuit Court dismissed the case as a
result of the appellant’s failure to strictly follow the notice provisions of the Act. The issue in this case is whether there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act, particularly giving that the government entity at issue had actual notice of the claim well within the period provided for in the act and actually conducted an investigation.
Jolly, Inc. v.
Ahmad Bagheri 550-00649
Anthony F. Vittoria, Esq. 410-685-1120 Contract
The Honorable Michael J. Finifter
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
The parties entered into a contract related to the purchase of a gas station and the land on which it sat. The contract included a liquidated damages provision allegedly permit- ting the buyer to keep a $124,000.00 deposit in the event of the seller’s failure to close. The Circuit Court permitted the appellant to keep only $1,000.00 of the deposit despite the liquidated damages provision. The issue on appeal is whether the liquidated damages provision was enforceable and whether the Circuit Court was correct in requiring the non-breaching party to prove damages despite the provision.
Winter 2009
Trial Reporter
63
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 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76