Ethics
Appellate Watch
Cary J. Hansel
753-2616 East Star, LLC, et al. v.
County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Warren Rich, Esquire (410) 267-5900 Preemption
Te Honorable Tomas G. Ross Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County
Queen Anne’s County enacted County Ordinance 08-20, which imposed certain performance standards on extraction operations. Te question on appeal is whether provisions of Maryland’s Environment Article preempt the County’s ordinance.
754-1822 Ronald Haibach v.
Nikki Allison O’Connell
Kristine R. Zenkewicz, Esquire (410) 752-8700 Negligence / Evidence
Te Honorable John H. Tisdale Circuit Court for Federick County
After his tractor-trailer broke down, Mr. Haibach was crossing the road to ask for directions when Ms. O’Connell struck him with her car. Te trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence concerning worker’s compensation benefits that Mr. Haibach received. Te trial court also granted Ms. O’Connell’s motion for judgment, finding there was insufficient evidence of negligence. Tese two rulings form the basis of the Plaintiff ’s appeal.
755-1663 Sheng Bi v. Delores A. Gibson
Greg G. Lee, Esquire (301) 251-5342 Statute of Limitations
Te Honorable Wanda Keyes Heard Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Te Plaintiff filed his first complaint within the three-year statutory period, but after a voluntary dismissal, re-filed the second complaint after the three-year limitations period. Te Special Court of Appeals must decide whether the Circuit Court properly dismissed the Plaintiff ’s lawsuit as barred by the statute of limitations.
756-1225 James Tzeng, et al. v. John Michael Woods, Sr., et al.
David A. Roling, Esquire (410) 263-5900 Medical Negligence
Te Honorable Julia B. Weatherly Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
At trial, the Plaintiffs presented expert testimony from a physician who did not practice in Maryland. On appeal, the critical questions are whether the Plaintiffs’ expert testimony concerned the same or similar community as that of the Defendant physician, whether the expert’s testimony was based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, and whether the expert established that the Defendant breached the standards of care.
Trial Reporter / Winter 2012 57
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