Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch alerts our Amicus Committee about cases important to MTLA and advises members of issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals.
Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Howard J. Wittbecker Victor D. Sobotka, Esq. v. Baltimore
410-684-2022
County, Maryland Workers Compensation 524-21
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Patrick Cavanaugh Baltimore County
Issues
The appellant is a police officer suffering from coronary artery disease. At issue is whether, in an occupational disease case related to employment as a police officer, the employer may produce experts to testify that stress is not a factor in the causation of heart disease despite a statutory presumption to the contrary. Also on appeal is the question of whether the Circuit Court erred in failing to exclude appellee’s ex- pert witness, denying appellant’s motion for judgment and excluding the appellant’s expert witness.
Hemingway’s, Inc. v. The North Atlantic
J. Donald Braden, Esq. 410-643-4000
Marine Group LLC Contract Law/ 525-819
Commercial Leasing/ Civil Procedure
Thomas G. Masog v. Michael G. Leahy, Esq. Anne Arundel
410-266-9500
County Maryland 526-308
Local Government
Liability/Local Government Tort Claims Act
Joseph P. Manck Anne Arundel County
Thomas G. Ross Queen Anne’s County
This case involves the interpretation of certain commercial lease provisions but the primary issue presented on appeal is procedural. The court is asked to determine whether, in a declaratory judgment action, after denying summary judgment to one party the Court may issue a declaratory judgment to the other party absent a motion for summary judgment, a court trial or a jury trial.
The plaintiffs allege that the County had been ordered to re- move an underground storage tank located on the property of the plaintiffs and had failed to do so in a workman like manner. The case was dismissed, however, as a result of the plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with the Local Govern- ment Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff argues that although the notice sent under the Act was sent to the wrong party, the plaintiff nevertheless substantially complied with the statute. The trial court held that the letter which the plaintiff claimed evidenced substantial compliance was insufficient because it did not state explicitly that the plaintiff intended to sue. The issue on appeal is whether this purported defect precludes application of the doctrine of substantial compli- ance under the circumstances.
Fall 2008
Trial Reporter
61
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