This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
593-02042 Arnold Houghton v. Cheryl Forrest


George A. Nilson, Esquire 410-396-4094 Constitutional Law/Police Misconduct


Te Honorable Paul A. Smith Baltimore City


Tis case involves allegations of police misconduct during an attempted arrest for drug distribution in which the officers were alleged to have knowingly arrested the wrong person at the direction of superiors. An officer appealed the jury’s award of $180,000.00 and its findings of malice, which render the officer personally liable. Te argument on appeal is that appellee failed to present sufficient evidence of actual malice to overcome the appellant’s alleged immunity from liability. Te evidence of malice in this case included that the officers were heard to say over the radio that they knew they had the wrong person but they were told to “lock her up anyway” and that the Plaintiff was knowingly arrested without cause thereafter. At trial, the officer acknowledged that a mistake had been made in the identification of the Plaintiff and that the wrong person had been arrested.


594-02134 Case Handyman and Remodeling Services LLC, et al. v. Judith Schuele


Lee B. Rauch, Esquire 410-752-9700 Arbitration


Te Honorable John Grason Turnbull, II Baltimore County


595-01597 Sophia Gilland v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Roger A. Doumar, Esquire 410-649-2000 Personal Injury/Slip and Fall


Judge and Court Not Listed


Te plaintiff alleged that pieces of metal display shelving were left in a Wal-Mart aisle, causing the plaintiff to slip and fall. Te trial court granted summary judgment, finding that there was no testimony to affirmatively establish the cause of the fall, even though pieces of metal fencing were observed on the floor after the fall. Te question is whether it would be permissible for the jury to draw an inference from the existence of the metal fencing on the floor after the fall that it existed there before the fall, that it caused the fall and that Wal-Mart had knowledge of the fencing and an opportunity to correct it. Te plaintiff notes that the fencing was part of the shelving unit maintained by Wal-Mart and therefore a strong inference exists that Wal-Mart employees were responsible for its presence on the floor.


Te court is asked to resolve whether an arbitration clause between two parties is broad enough to encompass causes of action against a third party who is not a signatory to the arbitration clause. Te non-signatory third party is alleged to have acted in concert with one of the signatories to harm the other signatory.


56 Trial Reporter / Summer 2009


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