Cases

June 27, 2023 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT SAIFULLAH KHAN v. YALE UNIVERSITY ET AL. (SC 20705) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mul

903 F.Supp. 881 (1995) Frances M. KHAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. AMD 94-2034. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 29, 1995. *882 *883 James Richard Lupinek, Ellicott City, MD, for plaintiff. Sheila Edwards Lundy, Office of the Att

ACCEPTED 03-16-00510-CV 13915805 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 N ATIONAL R IFLE A SSOCIATION OF A MERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C ITY OF C HICAGO, ILLINOIS, and V ILLAGE OF O AK P ARK , ILLINOIS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for

Hotten, J. Harry Malik Robertson ("Robertson") was involved in an altercation at a residential area near Morgan State University. The incident culminated in the stabbing death of one of its participants. A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found Robertson guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, but acquitted him of first- and second-degree murder and of carrying a weapo

MARK A. PIZZO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a breach of franchise agreement case involving a Maryland-based chicken wing franchise (Defendant franchisor Cluck-U Corp. and its sole shareholder, Defendant Pierre Haddad), a franchisee's attempt at a Florida location (Plaintiff Cluck-U Chicken, Inc. and its owner, Anthony Tartaglia), and the undoing of their business relationship. The parties have litigated in Maryland, where

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Celestine Tatung, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 14, September Term, 2020, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – CHOICE OF LAW - DISMISSAL This attorney grievance matter involves an attorney who made a handful of careless mistakes in connection with his representation of two clients seeking asylum in a federal immigration proceeding in Texas. The attorney objected to the charges on the ground that, under the choice of law provisions s

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mohamed Alpha Bah, Misc. Docket AG No. 3, September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT — Respondent Mohamed Alpha Bah violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19- 301.1 (Competence), 19-301.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19- 301.4 (Communication), 19-301.15(a) and (c) (Safekeeping of Property), 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation), 19-305.5(a) (Unau

State of Maryland v. Harry Malik Robertson, No. 40, September Term 2018, Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – OPEN DOOR DOCTRINE – STANDARD OF REVIEW – The Court of Appeals held that the appropriate standard of review for the determination of whether a party has opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence is de novo because the open door doctrine is ultimately a question of law. The Court reviews the separate inquiry of whether a party’s rebuttal evidence is proportional for a

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Prime Realty Associates, LLC, No. 53, September Term, 2019. Opinion by Getty, J. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS—DUE PROCESS OF LAW— SUBSTITUTED SERVICE—STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION The Court of Appeals held that Maryland Rule 3-124(o), which, in limited circumstances, allows for substituted service of process on the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”), satisfies a litigant’s due process rights. A limited liability company’s

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Celestine Tatung, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 14, September Term, 2020, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – CHOICE OF LAW - DISMISSAL This attorney grievance matter involves an attorney who made a handful of careless mistakes in connection with his representation of two clients seeking asylum in a federal immigration proceeding in Texas. The attorney objected to the charges on the ground that, under the choice of law provisions s

23-286 The Resource Group International Limited et al. v. Chishti 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 for the Second Circuit 4 5 6 August Term 2023 7 Argued: September 18, 2023 8 Decided: January 22, 2024 9 10 No. 23-286 11 12

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: The main issue before us is whether Amazon.com, Inc., is subject to liability for a defective product that a customer purchased on its website from a third-party seller with Amazon "fulfilling" the transaction by storing the product and shipping it to the customer. Trung Cao of Montgomery County, Maryland, purchased a headlamp on Amazon's w

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA23-1115 Filed 19 February 2025 Catawba County, No. 22 CVS 931 JOHN M. FISH, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE DOUGLAS STETINA, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 3 April 2023 by Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey in Catawba County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 August 2024. Wesley E. Starnes, PC, by Wesley E. Starnes,

(2008) Cathie FAULKNER, Plaintiff, v. TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 1:06CV00369. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. March 27, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ELIASON, United States Magistrate Judge. This case comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

[Dkt. # 10] MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Janice Edwards (“plaintiff or “Edwards”) is suing Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation (collectively “defendants” or “Ocwen”) for various wrongs allegedly committed while servicing plaintiffs mortgage. Se

OPINION RENDELL, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated appeal we consider whether named plaintiffs may appeal a district court order denying final certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (2007). The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their individual claims with prejudice but seek to pursue an appeal on behalf of others who opted

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAWAN N. TARQUINII, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 21-1567 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 60, 72

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-0445 (CJN) MYPILLOW, INC., et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, v. SMARTMATIC USA CORP., et al., Third-Party Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Lindell and MyPillow assert vario