635-03020 Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v.
Hopeton J. Daley
Stan M. Hayes, Esq. (410) 539-5040 Evidence
The Honorable Toni E. Clarke Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
636-1190 Darryl E. Green v.
State of Maryland
Julia C. Schiller, Esq. (410) 767-8529 Criminal
The Honorable Charles C. Bernstein Circuit Court for Baltimore City
637-00151 Kevin Bridgett v.
Montgomery County, Maryland
Kenneth M. Berman, Esq. (301) 670-7030
Workers’ Compensation
638-17 Royal Financial Services, Inc. v.
David Eason
Kathleen M Bustraan, Esq. (410) 539-5881 Civil Procedure / Class Action Certifications
The issue is whether a class action was
properly certified where the class consisted of consumers who received mortgage loans from the same lender acting in alleged violation of Maryland’s “Secondary Mortgage Loan Law” or Maryland’s “Credit Grantor End Credit Provisions.” The briefing presents a detailed review of the requirements for class certification under Maryland Rule 2-231 and the related case law.
639-00118 Stanley Friedler v. Elysha Krupp
Leonard A. Orman (410) 962-0400
Motor Vehicle Accident / Evidence
The plaintiff in this case, a doctor, was rear- ended and sustained two herniated disks. A jury awarded damages for past and future medical expenses as well as past lost earnings, but nothing for non-economic damages or future lost wages. The plaintiff attributes this to the primary issue raised on appeal - the court allowed the defense to question the doctor about his ownership of certain investments and vacation properties owned by the plaintiff.
This case presents the question whether summary judgment may be granted in Circuit Court to an employer who lost an evidentiary hearing before the Commission and presented no new evidence to the Circuit Court.
In addition to sufficiency of the evidence, this case presents the issues of: 1) when and to what extent the admission of autopsy and crime scene photographs is prejudicial; 2) whether the trial court involved itself too much and too suggestively in the jury’s role in comments following closing; and 3) whether the trial court assumed a prejudicial prosecutorial role questioning the accused from the bench.
in
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting the records of a treating physician. On the one hand, the doctor had not been named or called as a witness. On the other hand, another doctor was called who had reviewed and relied upon the records introduced.
60 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