Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Michela Gallagher v. William M. Huddles, Esq. H.V. Pierhomes, LLC 410-720-0070 551-01516
???/Strict Liability
Judge/ Jurisdiction
The Honorable Kay E.A. Allison
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues
The Plaintiff in this case owned a home near a pier which was being rebuilt. As part of the rebuilding of the pier, concrete piles approximately 100 feet in length were driven through 40 feet of water and into the soil below to a depth of 70-80 feet by a 5-10,000 pound “hammer” lifted by a Crain. The resulting vibrations were alleged to have caused damage to the Plaintiff’s nearby residence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for
more then $55,000.00, making findings supporting a claim of strict negligence as well as in nuisance. After the verdict, the court granted a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict finding that pile driving is not an abnormally dangerous activity and that there was neither public nor private nuisance. The issue in the case is whether the trial court erred in so ruling.
Timothy A. Frey v. Harry D. Shapiro, Esq. Comptroller of the Treasury 552-01360
410-332-8658
Constitutional Law/ Public Regulations/ Taxation
The Honorable Paul A. Hackner Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County
The Plaintiff in this case challenges the non-resident tax provisions of the Maryland State Code. Plaintiff notes that non-residents are subject to Maryland State Income Tax at a maximum rate of 6% whereas residents in the same year only had to pay a maximum rate of 4.75%. As a result, the appellant argues that the non-resident tax discriminates against non-resident tax payers and is thus prima facie unconstitutional. Such taxes are permissible if they are “compensatory
taxes” under Supreme Court precedent. The appellant argues that the tax at issues is not a compensatory tax. Appellant notes that the Maryland Tax Court agreed
that the non-resident tax was discriminatory but held that it was a valid compensatory tax. The Circuit Court appar- ently took the opposite tact and held that the non-resident tax is not discriminatory. The appellant appeals asking that the Court of Special
reverse both rulings and hold the non-resident tax uncon-
stitutional.contractual obligation with a third party which prevented it from pursing the corporate opportunity in any event. The appellant suggests that the resolution of these issues was for the jury.
64
Trial Reporter
Winter 2009
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