Case Name/Case # Bank of America v.
Steven W. Schultz 558-01063
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Jefferson G. Wright, Esq. 410-823-6565
Negligence/Banking
Judge/ Jurisdiction
The Honorable Michael J. Finifter
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Issues
Following the death of a Bank of America account holder, members of his family discovered that his caregiver had forged his signature in order to add herself to his bank account and divert funds to her own use. The family and estate sued the Bank of America in negligence and for breech of contract. The bank moved for judgment alleging that the Plaintiff
had failed to establish a relevant standard of care in the banking industry. The bank’s argument turned on the as- sertion that the Plaintiff needed an expert witness in order to establish the standard of care. The court determined that an expert was not necessary. The issue on appeal is whether expert testimony is re-
quired to establish that a bank must require identification and compare signatures to its signature cards when opening new accounts or permitting checks to be negotiated. As to the breech of contract claim, the bank alleges that
the Plaintiff failed to establish the terms of the contract or the breech of any term. The trial court held that a signature card is effectively a contract and creates contractual duties which were breached in this case. The issue, as it relates to the contract, is whether this ruling was legally correct.
Raya S. Bagheri v.
Montgomery County 202-822-8384 Maryland 559-00782
Slip and Fall
Patrick G. Senftle, Esq. Personal Injury/
The Honorable
William J. Rowan, III Circuit Court for
Montgomery County
The Plaintiff was walking inside a parking garage in Bethesda maintained by the county when she tripped and fell. The fall was allegedly caused by the failure of the county to properly repair and maintain the concrete parking lot surface which had eroded. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Defendant on the basis of governmental immunity. On appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the operation and mainte- nance of areas of public travel is a proprietary function for which the county has no immunity. The issue on appeal is whether immunity applies under the circumstances.
Mireille Vimmer- Ruvert v.
Board of Education
John B. Stolarz, Esq. 410-532-7200 Employment/
of Baltimore County Age Discrimination/ 560-00838
Sovereign Immunity The Honorable
Ruth A. Jakubowski Circuit Court for Baltimore County
The Plaintiff, an experienced teacher, applied for employ- ment with the Board of Education for Baltimore County and alleged that younger teachers were hired instead of her because of her age. The Circuit Court granted the Defen- dant’s motion to dismiss based on an assertion of sovereign immunity. The issue on appeal is whether the Board of Education for Baltimore County enjoys sovereign immunity against claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Winter 2009
Trial Reporter
67
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