Appellate Watch (Continued from page 69)
Case Name/Case # Balu C. Patel v.
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Milenko Rodovanovic 410-321-5770 544-1352
C. William Michaels Civil Procedure
Judge/ Jurisdiction
O. Robert Lidums Circuit Court for Cecil County
Issues
In this case between a general contractor and a subcontrac- tor involving the construction of a motel, the trial court examined witnesses on its own and permitted the plaintiff to reopen his case, call additional witnesses, and submit other documentary evidence after his case in chief had ended, the defense had rested, a motion for judgment had been reviewed and denied, and closing arguments were about to begin. The question for the Court on appeal is whether permitting the reopening of the case at this stage was appropriate and whether the trial court is permitted to examine witnesses on its own.
Fred Ezra Company Thomas D. Murphy v. Kevin Popko 545-482
301-424-0400
Contract/Arbitration Agreements
David A. Boynton Circuit Court for
Montgomery County
The appellant is a commercial real-estate broker licensed in the State of Maryland and the appellee was an independent real-estate agent associated with the appellant. The parties entered into an agreement to govern their relationship and, specifically, the division of advances and commissions. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. The appellee filed suit in connection with a demand that the parties’ contract be rescinded as a result of fraud. The appellant responded by demanding arbitration pursuant to the agreement. The Circuit Court held that the agreement was illusory and that it did not cover the clause of action that had been filed in any event. The question in this case is whether the specific language used in the arbitration agree- ment at issue renders the agreement illusory and whether the complaint’s allegation of fraud is outside of the scope of the arbitration clause given that the arbitration clause is limited to disputes “arising from or pertaining to this agreement”
About the Author
Cary J. Hansel is a shareholder with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. in Greenbelt, Maryland. He received his JD from George Washington University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Washington and Lee University. Since being admitted to the bar in December 1999, Mr. Hansel has concentrated his practice in trial and appellate advocacy. He has argued and/or authored briefs in 10 reported cases in the Appellate Courts of Maryland, two on behalf of MTLA.
Fall 2008
Trial Reporter
71
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