This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
600-02210 Augustine Ukaegbu v. Long Ngo


Garrett V. Williams, Esquire 202-776-0648 Real Property


Te Honorable Louise Scrivener Montgomery County


601-02417 Mike Perrine v. Steve Huff


Paul W. Ishak, Esquire 410-879-2222 Personal Injury/Assault and Battery


Te Honorable Emory A. Pitt, Jr. Harford County


Te Plaintiff sued a real-estate appraiser under the theory that the appraiser conspired to overvalue certain property to assist in its sale. In particular, it is alleged that the appraiser stated in his appraisal that certain property was located in Montgomery County when, in fact, it was located in Prince George’s County were property values are considerably lower. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the appraiser and the issue on appeal is whether the appraiser owes any duties to the buyer in a case were the appraiser is retained on behalf of the bank in order to evaluate the property for a potential loan in connection with the purchase.


Te plaintiff was stabbed on the defendant’s property during an altercation. When he was stabbed, the plaintiff was locked in a physical struggle with the defendant. Te plaintiff alleged that the defendant aided and abetted the perpetrator of the stabbing by struggling with the plaintiff, allowing the perpetrator to stab the plaintiff from behind. Te trial court held that in struggling with the victim, the defendant did not aid and abet the knife-wielding assailant as there was no common plan or scheme sufficient to support a conspiracy. On appeal, the plaintiff stresses the distinctions between aider and abettor liability and the standard for conspiracy, which the plaintiff claims that the trial court confused.


602-770 CSX Transportation Inc. v. Richard Bickerstaff


Andrew J. Pinkest, Esquire 202-263-3000 Evidence/Courtroom demonstration


Te Honorable Alfred Nance Baltimore City


Tis consolidated case involves 9 statutory claims for injuries caused to railroad workers as a result of a job requirement that they walk on large rocks or ballast that make up the surfaces in certain rail yards. Te primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to conduct a demonstration of plaintiffs’ work conditions in rail yards by placing rocks on the courtroom floor and then standing and walking on those loose rocks. Te defense alleges that the demonstration was misleading because, in actuality, the conditions in the courtroom did not reflect the conditions on the ground and were an inaccurate representation to the jury.


58 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