603-01596 Rainny Kelly v. Garden State Tanning Inc.
Roger A. Doumar 410-649-2000 Workers Compensation
Te Honorable John H. McDow Washington County
Tis case involves a claim for total permanent disability by a 52 year-old leather cutter who developed weakness in his cutting hand and became unable to grip his knife. He underwent several surgeries, but despite the surgeries was unable to work at the tannery because he was no longer able to lift or pull heavy hides. At trial, counsel for the defense stated that there was no dispute as to the fact that Mr. Kelly suffered from work-related disabilities and further stated that the disability determination and specifically the percentage, i.e. 40%, was not on appeal and that counsel agreed “to streamline these issues.” After hearing argument on a motion for judgment which did not raise this point, the trial court ruled sua sponte that the lack of medical testimony relating the disability to employment was fatal to the plaintiffs’ claims despite the fact that this issue was not raised in the appellee’s motion and had been previously stipulated out of the case. Te issue on appeal is whether the judge erred in ruling in this fashion.
604-00496 County Commissioners of Caroline County v. Town of Denton
Jefferson L. Blumquist, Esquire 410-659-7700 Municipal Annexation
Te Honorable Tomas G. Ross Caroline County
605-1846 Charles T. Coon, Sr. v. Richard A. Stephens, Jr.
Charles O’Fisher, Jr., Esquire 410-848-9200 Real Property
Te Honorable Michael M. Galloway Carol County
Tis case involves a dispute over a common driveway serving two contiguous lots of real property owned respectively by the plaintiffs and defendants.
Te
complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants did not have the right to use the driveway. Te court declared that both parties have the right to use the drive as presently located, that it shall be 12 feet wide with a stone surface and that it must be kept cleared of obstructions. A motion to alter or amend was filed seeking relief which was neither raised, requested nor litigated in the prior proceedings. In particular, the relief sought was that the shared driveway not be used for commercial traffic and that it be relocated along the common boundaries of the properties. In response, the court limited the use of the driveway to residential use only. Te appellants filed a motion asking the court to strike any such findings because the issue was not raised by the complaint and no opportunity to present evidence was given. Tat motion remained pending until the appellants appealed and the appellees thereafter filed a cross-appeal.
Te issue in this unusual case is whether or not the town of Denton is properly using its annexation authority to add to or expand the town. Te County Commissioners allege that instead Denton is attempting to use its annexation authority to effectively construct an entirely new town and, therefore, that Denton is acting beyond its statutory authority.
Trial Reporter / Summer 2009 59
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