This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
588-00530 Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Conchita Baxter, et al.


George W. Fanshaw, Esquire 410-628-7361 Motor Vehicle Accident/UIM Coverage


Judge Not Listed Baltimore City


590-1938 State of Maryland v. WBAL-TV


Stephanie Lane-Weber, Esquire 410-576-6340 Constitutional Law/First Amendment


Te Honorable Mickey J. Norman Baltimore County


591-0915 Teresa B. Greene v. Ronald Copeland


Russell A. Neverdon, Sr. 410-235-2184 Motor Vehicle Accident


Te Honorable Alfred Nance Baltimore City


592-1635 Statewide Septic Tank Service Inc. v. Covington Properties, LLC


Michael P. Darrow, Esquire 410-263-3131


Te Honorable Paul Goetzke Anne Arundel County


A television station moved the trial court to order the State to produce a DVD recording of a confession obtained in a first degree murder and a first degree rape case. Te television station also sought an audio tape of the statement made by the accused to the police and certain pictures of the accused with family members which were used during the sentencing phase of the trial. Te trial court ruled that all of these items be produced but stayed its order pending an appeal. Te State filed an appeal arguing that the trial court lacked authority to order these trial exhibits produced to a television station.


A taxi driver was alleged to have run a red light, resulting in an accident and injury. Te taxi company’s motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that the driver was an independent contractor was denied pretrial. However the motion was renewed and granted during a bench conference just before voir dire. At issue in the case is whether the renewal of the motion at that time was appropriate and whether the court erred as a matter of law by granting summary judgment given the allegation that there were genuine issues of disputed fact regarding the taxi driver’s agency.


Te trial court took approximately two years to render a


decision and granted prejudgment interest for a


period including those two years. Te primary issue raised on appeal is whether it was appropriate to award prejudgment interest for a period of time which the court had the matter under consideration.


Tis case presents the following question: May an insurer rely on the fact that a vehicle was driven by an excluded driver to avoid uninsured motorist coverage where an uninsured pedestrian was stuck by the vehicle?


Trial Reporter / Summer 2009 55


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