This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Legal Marketing Appellate


Watch Cary J. Hansel, III


912-2375 Peggy McQuitty, et vir. V. Donald B. Spangler, M.D., et al.


Henry E. Dugan, Jr., Esq. (410) 308-16040


Wrongful death, medical malpractice


The Honorable H. Patrick Stringer, Jr. Circuit Court for Baltimore County


This case involves the question of whether an unsatisfied personal injury judgment obtained by the tort victim during his lifetime bars subsequent wrongful death action based on the same wrongful act. The trial court in this case dismissed the wrongful death action, finding that the statutory language, “ “wrongful death’ means an act…which would have entitled the party injured to maintain an act and recover damages if death had not ensued,” to mean that the tort victim be capable of bringing the new action at the time of his death. Because the tort victim in this case had already filed a personal injury action and obtained a judgment prior to his death, the trial court concluded that the tort victim would have been precluded from filing a new action against the same party at the time of his death.


913-02470


Calvin McRae v. Maryland Transit Administration, et al.


Jeffrey J. Silver, Esq. (410) 625-88040 Immunity, notice


The Honorable Pamela J. White, Yolanda Tanner Circuit Court for Baltimore City


Brian K. Young, Esq. (410) 836-88340 Unjust enrichment


The Honorable Albert W. Northrop Circuit Court for Prince George’s County


This case revolves around embezzlement by a corporate accountant. The question on appeal is when the statute


Trial Reporter / Winter 2014 57


Appellant-plaintiff in this case suffered an accidental injury when he fell into an uncovered and unprotected storm drain. Appellant sent a statutory notice to the Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore City, and the State of Maryland. In response, the MTA claimed that it was “not responsible for maintaining the sewers and/or streets.” Appellant-plaintiff filed suit against the City, but later discovered that the MTA had owned the property where the storm drain was located at the time of the accident. Appellant-plaintiff filed against the MTA, but only after the three year statute of limitations period had run. Appellant argues that the MTA cannot claim immunity and that the SOL was tolled because of the “fraudulent concealment” by the MTA.


914-01496


American Board of Opticianary, et al. v. Maria Robey


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