Appellate Watch (Continued from page 67)
Case Name/Case # Charles Mack
Malone v.
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Melvin J. Caldwell 410-543-2240
Wallace L. Luffman Real Property 541-1508
Judge/ Jurisdiction
W. Newton Jackson, III Circuit Court for Wicomico County
Issues
This case involves two adjoining pieces of property and the question as to whether an express easement runs in favor of one of the property owners. At issue on appeal is whether the party against whom the easement is sought to be enforced must have express notice of the easement either through deed at the time of purchase or physical evidence. On appeal, the appellant argues that inquiry notice is sufficient to form an express easement and that the requirements for inquiry notice were met under the specific facts of the case.
Washington Ruby Deschamps
Metropolitan Transit 202-962-1463 Authority v.
Carol B. O’Keefe Personal Injury
Sherrie L. Krauser Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County
The plaintiff alleged while using an escalator at Metro Center in the District of Columbia the sleeve of her coat caught on a Plexiglas panel, causing her injury. On appeal, WMATA alleges that the trial judge erred in denying its motion for judgment because there was not sufficient evidence that WMATA either caused or had notice of the alleged defect which caused plaintiff’s coat sleeve to become caught. In this case, there was evidence that Plexiglas panels on the escalator can become loose or dislodged such that clothing can get caught causing injury. WMATA denied notice of any defects and claimed that the panels could have been vandalized, the patron could have inadvertently damaged them and that they are not in the exclusive control of WMATA.
The Wills Family Trust v. SMC-V Street Limited
Partnership 543-1590
David C. Driscoll 202-218-0007 Civil Procedure
Joseph Dugan Circuit Court for Montgomery County
This case involves the application of the doctrine of res judicata. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint below based on its alleged similarity to a prior lawsuit. The first litigation resulted in a jury verdict that the appellees had breeched fiduciary duties owed to the appellant in con- nection with their acquisition, management, or leasing of certain commercial warehouse properties that compete with warehouse properties owned by the appellee’s corpora- tion. The appellants alleged that the appellees committed further torts while the initial case was pending. Therefore, approximately three (3) months before trial in the first case, an amended complaint was filed which the Circuit Court struck based on the appellee’s motion stating that it sought to “add a serious of claims to invoking new and different legal principals that have not heretofore been apart of this case.” The appellant simply refilled these claims as a new lawsuit which has been dismissed on res judicata grounds. On appeal, the appellant relies on the obvious inconsistency between the appellee’s claim previously that the amended compliant added new claims and the dismissal on res ju- dicata grounds which relies on the theory that the claims are the same.
(Continued on page 71) Fall 2008 Trial Reporter 69
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