Case #
Case Name 469-10164 Barbara Wright v.
Counsel for Appellant/ Area of Law
Mercedes Benz USA, (410) 356-8835 LLC
Civil Procedure
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Ronald L. Rowland, Esq. Durke G. Thompson Montgomery County
Issues
When a case is dismissed “with leave to amend the complaint and refile it in a more appropriate venue,” is the plaintiff required to refile the complaint within 30 days pur- suant to Rule 2-322, given the plaintiff ’s argument that the case was dismissed vol- untarily, pursuant to Rule 2-506(a)(1)? The trial court dismissed the subsequently filed suit because it was not refiled within 30 days of the dismissal.
407-00791 Michael Spencer, et al. Peter C. Grenier, Esq. William B. Spellbring v. Outdoor Adventure (202) 828-4100 Supply, Inc.
Prince George’s County
The plaintiff’s goggles slipped from his face while playing paintball at the defendant’s facility. The plaintiff was struck in the eye by a paintball, causing him to go legally blind. The plaintiff alleges that Outdoor Adventures did not tell him that the goggles could slip off, that they did not tell them that Outdoor Adventures would forego inspecting his goggles, and that they did not tell him that Outdoor Adventures would forego giving him standard instructions regarding how to safely react should his goggles fall off. The court ruled that being struck in the eye after one’s goggles slip off while playing paintball is indistinguishable from a reported case in which a child assumes the risk of playing baseball and is injured when an individual slides into the child’s ankle.
471-00473
Prince George’s v. Wayne Robinson
Robert J. Mellin, Esq. (301) 952-5574 Employment/ Administrative
C. Philip Nichols Prince George’s County
Whether the court erred as a matter of law in affirming a decision of the County Personnel Board that a county agency was required to follow its own guidelines regarding the time allotted to conduct an investigation in connection with workplace harassment. As a result of the agency’s failure to follow its own guidelines, the County’s Personnel Board ruled in favor of the employee and against the county. The Personnel Board further found that the county agency failed to show a rational relationship between the offense, which was alleged, and the discipline imposed. This portion of the opinion was affirmed as well. The question on appeal is whether the Circuit Court was legally correct in affirming the board findings on both of these issues.
(Continued on page 60) 58 Trial Reporter Winter 2007
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