Case Name/Case # Kathleen Gasper v.
Ruffin Hotel
Corporation of Maryland 534-968
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Employment Litigation
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Rebecca N. Strandberg, Esq. Michael Mason 240-247-0675
Terrence McGann Circuit Court for
Montgomery County Issues
The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed and thereafter fired as a result of her protected activity, includ- ing complaining about the harassment. The Circuit Court instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove that her protected activity was a determining factor regarding her termination. On appeal, the appellant claims that the Circuit Court erred in instructing the jury and that rather then a “determining factor” the jury should have been instructed that her protected activity must be a “motivating factor” in order to succeed in her retaliatory discharge claim.
HumanVision, LLC Andre J. Gingles, Esq. v. Karington LLC 535-1726
301-572-5001 Contract
Sean D. Wallace Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County
This case involves a real-estate development project. The appellant sought the rescission of an operating agreement and the return of the parties to their pre-agreement status quo based on alleged misconduct by the appellees. The trial court denied the rescission and granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. The briefing is highly fact specific, but addresses the requirements for rescission of an agree- ment amongst alleged fiduciaries as well as the cannons of contractual interpretation.
Kelly Green v. N.B.S. Inc. 536-1258
Martha L. Chase v. Kenwood Forest Condominium II 537-1121
Brian S. Brown, Esq. 410-547-0202
Tort/Non-Economic Damages Cap
L. Palmer Foret, Esq. 202-332-2404 Contract
John Phillip Miller Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Nelson W. Rupp, Jr. Circuit Court for Montgomery County
In this lead paint poisoning case, the question for the court is whether the cap on non-economic damages applies to claims brought pursuant to Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. The case also brings a constitutional challenge to the cap. The plaintiff is fighting to keep a verdict of $2.3 million.
This premises liability action arises out of a slip and fall on ice on the premises of a condominium complex. The condo- minium bylaws contain an exculpatory clause absolving the condominium from any negligence. The appellant argues that the exculpatory clause in the condominium documents is ambiguous and equivocal and therefore unenforceable because such clauses are strictly construed. The question for the Court is whether the clause is ambiguous and equivo- cal in the first instance and, secondly, if so, whether it is enforceable. The language in the condominium documents provides that the association will not be liable for “injury or damage to person or property caused by the elements or resulting from electricity, water, snow or ice which may leak or flow from any portion of the common elements.” The appellant argues that the association is nevertheless liable for its own negligence in failing to properly remove snow and ice.
Fall 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