Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Systalex Corporation Benjamin Chew, Esq. v. Virginia Callahan 202-457-6000 453-1279
Business Litigation
Judge/ Jurisdiction The Honorable William J. Rowan, III
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Issues
The corporate appellant argues that its former officer took a corporate opportunity for a competitor of the entity to benefit himself. It is alleged that while employed as an officer of Systalex, the appellee lobbied a government contracting officer and obtained a contract for a competitor of Systalex. It’s alleged that this was done during working hours while the officer was being paid by Systalex, using contacts devel- oped by Systalex and a false resume which suggested that the officer was no longer employed by Systalex. The question is whether the trial court was correct in
granting summary judgment to the appellee. The appellant alleges that the trial court improperly weighed competing evidence to determine that Systalex did not wish to pursue the corporate opportunity at issue and that Systalex had a contractual obligation with a third party which prevented it from pursing the corporate opportunity in any event. The appellant suggests that the resolution of these issues was for the jury.
Linda Jones v. Rebecca Leigh Bannister 554-1070
C. Williams Michaels, Esq. 410-321-5770
Motor Vehicle Accident/ Negligence
The Honorable
David A. Boynton Circuit Court for
Montgomery County
This case involves the fatal collision between a car and a bicycle at an intersection. The parties dispute the state of the traffic control light at the intersection and whether the car had a red or green light. The individual on the bicycle was crossing the road and within the crosswalk when struck by the automobile. The trial court granted summary judg- ment for the driver of the automobile holding that the boulevard rule applied to those riding bicycles as well as other automobiles. The defense also argued that the traffic light was green
that the automobile driver was the favored driver and that, as a result, she is entitled to the presumption that the bicycle driver was contributory negligent as a matter of law for not yielding to her vehicle. Therefore, the defense argued below that it is irrelevant whether or not the driver was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the collision a fact, also in dispute. The primary issue on appeal is whether or not the bou-
levard rule applies to a person riding a bicycle or only other automobiles. The appellant also argues that the boulevard rule does not apply because the bicycle rider was merely crossing the street and not “entering a favored roadway from an unfavored roadway”.
Winter 2009
Trial Reporter
65
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