This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Alternative Dispute Resolution   


 


    


 


 


 


 


•• • •


680-0051 David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Department of General Services, et al.


L. Teri Spradlin-Dahn, Esq. (410) 269-5066 Constitutional


Te Honorable J. Owen Wise (specially assigned) Circuit Court for Kent County


Te appellant challenges, on equal protection grounds, minority business enterprise set-asides.





 


681-02762 Carol Boerio-Croft v. Paul Luttner


David W. Lease, Esq. (301) 838-8950 Civil Procedure


Te Honorable David A. Boynton Circuit Court for Montgomery County


In this contract action, the jury awarded $90,000 on an unjust enrichment theory. A motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict was filed noting that a prior lawsuit raising the exact same facts and asserting the same causes of action had been filed in the District Court and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice there. Te question is whether this has any claim or issue preclusive effect on the verdict.


682-899 Monti Mantrice Flemming


Brian A. Zemil, Esq. (410) 494-6200 Criminal/forensics


Te Honorable Louis A. Becker Circuit Court for Howard County





Tis case involved a very significant Frye-Reed challenge to toolmaker testimony purporting to “match” a spent round removed from the victim’s body and those fired from a recovered firearm. Te evidence was allowed, but the challenge was turned against the defense and the defense was denied the ability to cross examine prosecution witnesses on why they did not use newer techniques which the court found had not yet gained general acceptance. On appeal, the defense notes that the Frye-Reed test is one for the admissibility of expert opinions, not the limits of appropriate cross examination. Another important issue on appeal is whether it was appropriate for one defense expert to testify that the opinions of two other defense experts were, “credible.”


50 Trial Reporter / Fall 2010


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