This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
The Attorney's Office Tools


646-02680 Sheldon Chan v. Lanre Banjo


Walter L. Blair, Esq. (301) 474-4700 Property Law


Te Honorable Ronald D. Schiff Circuit Court for Prince George's County


Te Plaintiffs sued a recent purchaser of an adjacent


parcel of property claiming adverse possession of a portion of the land. Te court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant appealed arguing that the trial court erred in applying elements of adverse possession. Te Appellant notes that all but one of the Plaintiffs purchased their respective properties in the last decade. Te defendant asserts on appeal that the 20 year period of adverse possession was reached by the trial court by tacking on time periods of successive ownership by different parties in contravention of the standard for adverse possession.


647-2122 Maryland City Counsel of Baltimore v.


Zvi Guttman


George A. Nilson, City Solicitor (410) 396-3945 Employment/Government Contacts


Te Honorable M. Brooke Murdock Circuit Court for Baltimore City


Te City of Baltimore employed Jimmy Mullins in its


city owned body shop while his wife owned a company which served as a vendor for automobile body repairs performed on city owned vehicles. On January 14, 2004 WBFF Fox 45 broadcast news


carried statements by the vendor regarding the age and poor condition of the automobile fleet used by the Baltimore City Police Department. Shortly thereafter, the vendor’s services were terminated. Te City claims that the determination was as a result


of the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Mullins, which allegedly caused a conflict of interest. However the jury found a retaliatory termination in


violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


Te City claims that there was no official policy or


custom of retaliation as required under 42 USC §1983 and therefore the verdict should be overturned. In response, the appelee will no doubt cite case law to the effect that even a single incident can reflect a policy or custom of government body.


648-01847 Micah Toyer v. Raquel Lilly


Hands Jay Phillips, Esquire 410-727-5095 Civil Procedure/Summary Judgment/Public Official Immunity


An emergency vehicle operated by a police officer


crashed into the driver’s side of the Plaintiff ’s vehicle causing personal injury. Te primary issue on appeal is whether an officer whose actions would otherwise have been plainly negligent is entitled to immunity when operating a marked police emergency vehicle in response to a call for an officer needing assistant with an armed person. In this case, the emergency lights and sirens were deployed at the time of the accident. Te trial court granted summary judgment based in part on the theory of immunity. Te Plaintiff appeals proffering that immunity applies to simple negligence but the jury could have determined that the officer in this case was grossly negligent.


649-01813 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. Valarie D. Hunt


Lisa O’Mara Arnquist, Esq. (410) 585-3079 Administrative Law/Employment/Drug Testing


Te Honorable Dana M. Levitz Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland


Te issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly


overturned an administrative law judge’s finding that an employee had tested positive for the use of marijuana. In particular, the employee argued that there was a lack of sufficient evidence that the drug test issued was positive because the department failed to present the actual laboratory test results.


Trial Reporter / Spring 2010 67


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  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76