626-02983 William C. Bell, et al. v. John C. Felder
Jonathan A. Azrael, Esq. (410) 821-6800 Torts / Fraud
The Honorable Susan Souder Circuit Court for Baltimore County
This case involves the sale of stock in an automobile dealership. Significant litigation arose in connection with the sale of the stock in which the appellee counterclaimed alleging fraud. The allegation of fraud alleged in the counter claim was that the appellant did not disclose to the appellee that taxes had not been paid and other decisions had been made prior to the sale of the dealership which affected the ability to run the dealership profitably. The allegations of the counterclaim also included the failure to disclose other “detrimental factors to the continued operation of the dealership during the sale.”
The allegation of fraud asserted at trial, however, was that no stock certificates were ever signed over to the appellant and therefore the transfer was fraudulent. When this argument was asserted (allegedly for the first time) at trial, appellant’s counsel pointed out that there was nothing in the counterclaim that alleges anything to do with the failure to deliver the stock. Moreover, this concern was not alleged in the pleadings or included in answers to interrogatories. Nevertheless, the question was allowed to go to the jury. The issue in this case was whether it should have.
627-00119 L. Hall v.
An adult student suffering from
St. Mary’s Seminary and University, et al.
Leslie Robert Stellman, Esq. (410) 339-6752 Defamation
The Honorable Albert J. Matricciani, Jr. Circuit Court for Baltimore City
mental,
physical and emotional disabilities due to post traumatic stress arising out of a violent sexual assault matriculated at St. Mary’s Seminary. It is alleged that, despite knowledge of her condition, a dean there engaged in a year long pattern of harassment including ridiculing and challenging the student’s use of a service dog on campus, verbally abusing the student, accusing her
of inappropriate conduct,
disrespect and, at one point, plagiarism. The
court dismissed the case without a
hearing or explanation of its reasoning. The defense had argued that the defamatory writing was protected by an absolute privilege predicated upon the appellant’s consent of the defamation. The allegations of consent to defamation arise from the appellant’s initiation of a grade appeal in connection with the work at issue.
Appellant had received a “B” in a class, and appealed that grade believing she should have received a higher grade, but was never accused of plagiarism or any other misconduct until the dean reviewed the situation and the paper. Therefore, the appellant’s argument is that she neither consented to, nor could have anticipated, the defamation.
56 Trial Reporter / Winter 2010
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