Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch Program and articles in the quarterly Trial Reporter have been a part of MTLA member services for several years. Appellate Watch was instituted for several reasons: First, the program alerts our Amicus Committee about any cases and issues of importance to the MTLA. Second, members are advised of the issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals. Finally, due to the gracious assistance of Court of Special Appeals Clerk, Leslie Gradet, MTLA is able to provide members with copies of appellate briefs cited in these articles. To obtain a copy of a brief at nominal cost, contact MTLA’s executive director,
Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Baltimore City Police Ralph S. Tyler, Esq. Department v.
(410) 396-8393
Freddie Harper and Criminal Defense/ Martin McKitchen 428-941-06
Foundation, Inc., et al. Consumer Protection/ 429-815-06
(410) 557-6192 Telemarketing
Michael Chapman, et al. v. Gui-fu li, et al.
430-1297-06 Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
(202) 463-3030 Clifford Sobin, Esq. (301) 670-7030 Products Liability/ Smoke Detector
Police Misconduct
Paul F. Worsham Michael C. Worsham, Esq. DeLawrence Beard v. Lighthouse Credit
Montgomery County
Stuart Andrew Sutton, Esq. Michael D. Mason (301) 916-5000
Montgomery County
Whether the circuit court had discretion under federal telemarketing law to award less than the statutory minimum damages for unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to the plaintiff.
This tragic case involves the death of two children and grievous injuries to other family members in a house fire in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The fire caused by a candle in the basement of the house used during an electrical outage caused by severe thunderstorms. The complaint alleges that the smoke detector in the basement, which was hard wired into the home’s electrical system, was not functioning due to the power outage. When the house was built in 1989, dual power smoke detectors were not installed. A dual power smoke detector would have had a battery backup and been functional during the black out. The appellants filed suit against the landlords, the manufacturers, and the installers of the smoke detectors in the home. The issue in the case with respect to each defendant is whether the amended complaint included sufficient allegations of proximate cause with re- spect to the injuries sustained. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, the various defendants conceded that the smoke detector was defective and inoperable on the evening in question.
Judge/ Jurisdiction
John N. Prevas Baltimore City
Issues
Whether the public defender is entitled to subpoena and receive findings of the internal investigation division for purposes of cross examining police officers at trial.
68
Trial Reporter
Summer 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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76