Alternative Dispute Resolution
Appellate Watch
Cary J. Hansel
677-00356 Gallagher Evlius & Jones, LLP v.
Joppa Drive-Tru, Inc. D/B/A Checkers
Ward Coe, III, Esq. (410) 727-7702 Discovery/Civil Procedure
Te Honorable John F. Fader, II Baltimore County Circuit Court
In this case the circuit court judge granted a motion to compel because for the sole reason that the response was not in a format preferred by the judge. Te judge wanted the response to include the request, the response, and the reasons why the response given was appropriate. Te appellants point out that this format is required in filing the motion itself but not in the opposition and therefore suggest that their opposition should have been considered by the court and not similarly ignored.
678-02760 Chang K. Yim v.
Mayor and City Counsel or Baltimore, et al.
Peter A. Prevas, Esq. (410) 752-2340 Constitutional Law
Te Honorable Lynn K. Stewart Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Baltimore passed an ordinance comply known as the pad lock law which permits the chief of police to close a business for up
to one year if certain enumerated unlawful acts took place on or in some cases near the business at least twice at any time in the prior two years. Te law does not require a nexus between the conduct on or near the premises and the participate or knowledge or acquiescence by the owner of the premises and the allege conduct as a result. Te Plaintiffs challenge the statute under a variety of constitutional standards.
679-0691 Leanile Collins v. State of Maryland
Lisa J. Sansone, Esq. (410) 719-0221 Criminal/Constitutional
Te Honorable Robert B. Kershaw Circuit Court for Baltimore City
In this criminal matter a group of students and their teachers arrived to observe the trial as part of a classroom exercise. Te judge took a break and informed the teachers outside the presents of the students that the trial involved a graphic videotape that the judge had seen previously and which caused him to loose sleep. Te judge stated that it would not be appropriate for the students and asked that the students leave the proceedings. Among other issues on appeal the appellant argues that his right to a public trial was denied when the judge asked that the group of students not observe the graphic videotape. Te issue on appeal is whether this right was violated.
Trial Reporter / Fall 2010 49
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