Case Name/Case # Brian Miller v.
Baltimore County
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Michael Marshall, Esq. 410-685-2022
Police Department Administrative 506-00343
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Thomas J. Bollinger Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Issues
The appellant is an officer with the Baltimore County Po- lice Department suing to enforce his rights under the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights in connection with a departmental investigation of his on-the-job conduct. The appellant argues that the Department violated the Law En- forcement Officers Bill of Rights by issuing a subpoena for records in connection with its investigation absent subpoena power. The officer also argues that requiring the produc- tion of an officer’s personal records in a police department’s internal investigation violates the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.
John Grady v. Irwin Weiss, Esq.
Darin Donell Brown 410-821-0001 507-00246
Richard M. Bader, Esq.
410-727-0360 Motor Vehicle Accident
Carol E. Smith Circuit Court for Baltimore City
In this case, a motorcycle rider was injured when there was contact between his motorcycle and a car exiting an alley. The driver of the car exiting the alley testified that he inched out of the alley and pulled even or slightly behind parked cars that were parked along Fallkirk Road in Baltimore City. The motorcycle driver testified that the car pulled further out of the alley into his path on Fallkirk Road. After a de- fense verdict was returned, the appellant appealed the Trial Court’s refusal to grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment and later Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, both based upon the Boulevard Rule.
Jeffrey Jenkins v. The Hartford
Insurance Group 508-00423
Dennis F. O’Brian, Esq. 410-296-1440
Gary R. Maslan, Esq.
410-282-2700 Motor Vehicle Accident/ Damages
Dana M. Levitz
This is a motor tort in which liability was uncontested, and a trial was held on the issue of damages on appeal. The ap- pellant argues that the Trial Court erred when it instructed the jury that it could not consider Plaintiff’s disappointment and mental anguish associated with withdrawing from Olympic competition as a result of injuries he sustained in the accident. Further, the appellant argues that the Trial Court erred in granting a Defense Motion in Limine to exclude all evidence regarding the future economic loss sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of being forced to withdraw from Olympic competition. The Plaintiff in the case was engaged in training for a spot on the United States Olympic Team in the sport of Tae Kwon Do. He had been training since an early age, seven days per week, for as much as seven hours per day, and had already bested all of those in his weight class who were expected to compete in the Pan Am Games. There was testimony at the trial to the effect that it was a “lock” that the Plaintiff would earn a spot on the Olympic Team if it had not been for the accident.
62
Trial Reporter
Summer 2008
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