Case # 443-590
Case Name Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, et al. v. Snyder, et al.
Counsel for Appellant/ Area of Law
Civil Procedure/ Asbestos Bodily Injury
Judge/ Jurisdiction
George Cochran Doub, Jr., Esq. Clifton J. Gordy/ (410) 539-6500
Baltimore City Issues
Was summary judgment properly granted in con- nection with a cross-claim filed by Grimes Aerospace Company against Surface Combustion, Inc. under the following circumstances: Surface Combustion, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment address- ing only the plaintiff’s claims against it. The motion did not mention the cross-claim filed against Surface Combustion, Inc. by Grimes Aerospace Com- pany seeking indemnification. However, Surface Combustion, Inc.’s motion was accompanied by a proposed order which granted summary judgment with respect to all claims and cross-claims. Surface Combustion, Inc. is also alleged to have forwarded the proposed order and motion to the Circuit Court with a letter which gave the impression that there was no opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Without waiting the fifteen (15) days provided by the Maryland Rules for a response, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment as to all claims and cross-claims, thereby granting summary judgment as to the cross-claim for indemnification even though the time for an opposition had not run and that portion of the motion would be opposed. Thereafter, Grimes Aerospace Company filed a motion to modify the order which was denied and this appeal followed.
445-02667
Southern Resources Gorman E. Geppy, III, Esq. Ronald D. Schiff/ Management, Inc. v. v. Sunnybrook Properties, LLC
(301) 777-8032 Contracts
Prince George’s County
Under a timber harvest contract permitting South- ern Resources Management to harvest timber from Sunnybrook’s land, did the Circuit Court err when it denied a refund of monies paid to Sunnybrook to harvest the timber given that work stopped prematurely allegedly as a result of Sunnybrook’s failure to meet Prince George’s County regulatory requirements?’
Copies of any of the appellants’ briefs cited in this article are available to members for $20 each. Please be sure to note the Case # as shown in the “Appellate Watch” table.
54 Trial Reporter Summer 2006
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