Case Name/Case # Rogers Morgan v.
Brownstone Managemen Company 513-687
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
David P. Korteling, Esq. 301-718-1900 Agency
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Dwight Jackson Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Issues
The Plaintiff is a condominium owner suing an agent of the condominium association. As a result of a dispute with the condominium owner, the association voted to turn off the water supply to the owner’s units. In effecting the wishes of the association, its agent is alleged to have broken into the owner’s units, damaged the owner’s property, cut holes in the walls and capped off certain pipes providing water to the units. The Circuit Court held that the agent was not liable because he was acting solely as an agent, and that the unit owner should have sued the condominium board. On ap- peal, the unit owner asks the Court whether an agent is liable to a third party for torts committed by the agent with the knowledge of or at the direction of a disclosed principal.
Moses Parker v.
Claudia Maitland 514-00547
Nigel L. Scott, Esq. 202-882-5770
Motor vehicle accident/ settlement agreement
Ronald D. Schiff Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
In this case, it is alleged that an attorney’s client withdrew the attorney’s settlement authority, but that the attorney went forward and represented to opposing counsel that the case was settled. Thereafter, the client attempted to repudiate the agreement. The Defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement which was granted by the Trial Court and the Plaintiff was ordered to sign a release while still asserting that he did not agree to settlement on the terms accepted by his attorney. On appeal, the client argued that even though the attorney is an agent for the client for many purposes, the attorney may not settle a lawsuit without the client’s express permission, and therefore, there is no settlement. The issue for the Court is whether a settlement agreement is binding where a client withdrew the attorney’s authority to enter the agreement prior to the attorney representing to the other side that an agreement had been reached.
Mary Susan
Crickenberger v. Hyundai Motor America 515-434
Hy David Rubenstein, Esq. Diane Leasure 410-998-1119 Lemon Law/ Automotive
Circuit Court for Howard County
The Plaintiff sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Im- provement Act, and sections of the Maryland Commercial Code for defects in an automobile falsely represented to be new, when in fact, it was previously part of a rental fleet. The car had been repaired on numerous occasions as a result of alleged defects which existed when the car was purchased as “new.” The issue in the case is whether expert testimony was necessary to establish both causation and damages in connection with such claims.
Summer 2008
Trial Reporter
65
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