This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Anatomy of a Civil Trial


Appellate Watch


Cary J. Hansel


772-2166 Virgil Lee Coulter v. Ray E. Miller


Robert L. Allen (301) 387-2800 Civil Procedure


Te Honorable James Sherbin Circuit Court for Garrett County


In this case involving a dog attack suffered by a bicyclist, the primary issue on appeal is whether admissions made in the initial answer can still be used after an amended answer is filed which does not include the same admissions. Te trial court excluded the admissions at issue.


773-02770 Ilene Holly Burstyn v. Vamoose Bus, Inc.


Charles S. Rand No telephone number listed


Te Honorable Robert A. Greenberg Circuit Court for Montgomery County Negligence


At issue is whether the trial court erred in granted summary judgment to the defense on the theory that the plaintiff/bus passenger assumed the risk of a fall when she stood to retrieve items from an overhead bin before the bus had come to a full stop.


774-00741 Winston Martin Holding Group v. Jason Fenwick


Dennis Whitley, III (301) 925-1800 Foreclosure


Te Honorable Crystal D. Mittelstaedt Te Honorable Albert W. Northrop Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland


Trial Reporter / Spring 2012 59


Te plaintiff alleges that the Sheriff posted the wrong property in connection with a foreclosure proceeding. Te appeal concerns what burdens are borne by each party and whether the plaintiff ’s evidence was sufficient.


775-01981 Alicia Youmans v. Douron, Inc.


Bruce M. Bender (301) 738-7660 Slip & Fall / Contract


Te Honorable David Boynton Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland


Te plaintiff leaned on a desk which suddenly collapsed due to poor assembly. She sued, initially for breach of implied warranty and later added a negligence count. Te case was dismissed under the theory that the statute of limitations had run. With respect to the warranty claim, the Court ruled that it was not saved by Section 9-902 of the Labor and Employment Article because the claim sounded in contract rather than negligence. As for the negligence claim, although Section 9-902’s two-month extension of the limitations period would have otherwise saved it, the Court ruled that the negligence claim, despite being a tort, was time-barred because it was filed later as an amendment which allegedly did not relate back to the initial Complaint. Te trial court reasoned that there was no relation back because the warranty claim did not have all of the elements of the negligence claim. Te plaintiff counters that the two claims arise from the same factual scenario which was alleged all along.


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