Appellate Watch (Continued from page 42) Case # 419-00938 Case Name Liquor License
Counsel for Appellant/ Area of Law
Commissioners for (301) 627-7700 Prince George’s County, Administrative Law/ v. Global Express
Money Orders, Inc., Subpoena et al.
420-00803 Swinford v. Failure to Answer
Deer Valley, LLC (301) 654-4100 Property Law
Richard J. Speinnepz, Esq. Robert C. Nalley/ Charles County
Edmond B. O’Connell, Esq. Dwight Jackson / Prince George’s County
In a case where lawfully-subpoenaed police of- ficers refuse to testify under a policy of their department that they not testify in hearings be- fore the Liquor Board, should the Board have permitted counsel the opportunity to seek a Circuit Court order compelling such testimony?
Among other issues, did the trial court err in granting a motion for summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding appellant’s right-of-way en- cumbering appellees’ property to be an unreasonable restraint upon alienation, and therefore, invalid and unenforceable?
421-1041 Miller v. Bankers Gina M. Connell, Esq. E. Allen Shepherd/ Independent Insurance Co.
(202) 265-7755 Personal Injury/
Motor Vehicle Accident 422-175 Ward v. Hartley
Frances A. Pommett, III Joseph H. H. Kaplan/ (410) 685-0888
Baltimore City Personal Injury/Dog Bite
423-01268 Hill v. Ann Halt, et al. Alice D. Kohler, Esq. (410) 308-1600
Charles Matinez, Esq. (410) 752-7474 Medical Malpractice
Campbell v. Larry Bolourian, et al.
Richard D. Mosier, Esq. Cynthia (202) 662-5166
Elizabeth Keys, Esq. (301) 431-4185 Civil Procedure/Discovery
425-01135 Tiso v. Lumpkin Mark E. Herman, Esq. Nikki H. (410) 837-2144 Personal Injury/
Motor Vehicle Accident 426-916
Cicone v. Hartford H. Patrick Stringer, Jr. Maurice Baldwin/ Mutual Insurance Company
Personal Injury/ Motor Vehicle Accident
(410) 828-1335 Hartford County Morman, Esq./ Baltimore County Campbell, Esq.
Joseph H.H. Kaplan/ Baltimore City
Prince George’s County
Whether medical information received by the defense in response to a third-party subpoena but not authenticated should have been intro- duced into evidence in this personal injury case for impeachment purposes.
Whether a landlord owes a business invitee a duty of care to protect the invitee from a pit bull kept by tenants on the leased premises where the landlord knew or should have known of the presence of the dog.
Whether the plaintiff’s certificate of qualified expert was deficient because it allegedly did not include a specific list or specifically identify the defendant healthcare providers whom the expert believed were negligent.
In an action for unpaid wages, should appellant be forced to produce in discovery information about her current immigration status, current employment status, and tax returns filed subse- quent to her employment with the defendants?
Whether a motion for judgment after close of the evidence should have been granted given that the plaintiff driver testified that she was rear- ended and further, given that there was no explanation given in an attempt to rebut the pre- sumption of negligence on the part of the driver who rear-ended her.
In an insurance policy defining “you” and “your” as referring to the named “insured,” and where a corporate entity is the only named insured, should the policy extend UM/UIM coverage to the secretary and treasurer of the corporation who is also an employee?
(Continued on page 46) 44 Trial Reporter Spring 2006
| 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