This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Alternative Dispute Resolution


691-00817 Frederick Donuts, Inc. v.


The winning edge for Maryland trial lawyers since 1969


690-777 Charles Edward Jones v.


James Elsworth Williams


Howard J. Shulman, Esq. (410) 576-0400 Civil Procedure


Te Honorable Barry G. Williams Circuit Court for Baltimore City


In this two-car motor vehicle accident case, the defendant asserted contributory negligence as a defense and filed a counterclaim sounding in negligence. Te counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. Te issue on appeal is whether the dismissal of the negligence counterclaim with prejudice precludes further assertion of the affirmative defense of contributory negligence against the defendant under an issue or claim preclusion theory.


Upcounty Donuts, LLC NLRG National Legal Research Group


Put us to work helping you win today.


1-800-727-6574 or research@nlrg.com


Fast, Affordable, Specialized Research, Writing and Analysis


For more information, and to see what your peers are saying about us: www.nlrg.com


Steven D. Campen, Esq. (301) 668-5808 Arbitration


Te Honorable Ronald B. Rubin Circuit Court for Montgomery County


Tis case involves the sale of three donut shop franchises. Te purchasers were aggrieved because the sellers allegedly concealed the problematic immigration status of a significant portion of their workforce before the sale. Te purchasers made demand for arbitration under the contract and the issue is whether their damage theory was too speculative or otherwise unsupported by the evidence. Specifically, the award turned on expert testimony estimating (guessing in the eyes of the sellers) that damages could be anywhere from approximately $76,000 to approximately $576,000. Te sellers further complaint that the damage award was based, in part, on an estimate of future profits from all three donut shops despite the fact that one burned to the ground shortly after the sale.


692-00554 Robyn Mullen v. Perez Corporation


David M. Kopstein, Esq. (301) 552-3330 Evidence


Te Honorable Crystal Mittelstaedt Circuit Court for Prince George’s County


Tis is an assault case involving significant injuries which were undertreated because the plaintiff did not have insurance and could not afford any further medical bills. Among other issues, the plaintiff raises the trial court’s refusal to permit this testimony as error. Te testimony was precluded on the theory that it would raise the specter of insurance, but the plaintiff cites recent case law to the effect that such testimony is permissible under the present circumstances.


54 Trial Reporter / Fall 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