Maryland Court of Appeals

I: Case The Court of Appeals of Maryland Number 69 September Term, 2012. Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland. Case number 12-K-08-001527. Argued: April 8, 2014. Decided: August 27, 2014 II. Case Summary This appeal evolved out of a 2006 rape case that occurred in Harford county Maryland. More than two years after the incident the victim identified Glenn Joseph Raynor, hereby known as petitioner, as a possible suspect. After departing a voluntary police interview in which petitioner ultimately

underlying litigation, all indicate that this Court should deny 50NL’s motion to compel. Unfortunately, while Md. Rule

Maryland Department of the Environment v. Anacostia Riverkeeper Kelsey McRoberts Slippery Rock University INTRODUCTION In 2013, Anacostia Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to restoring the Anacostia River, challenged a permit issued in 2010 by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). The MDE issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit to Montgomery County, Maryland (Edwards, 2015). MS4 systems fall under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National

In the State v. Rusk, Defendant Rusk was found guilty by a jury of second-degree rape, however, there was no evidence of resistance. The question for the Court was whether there was sufficient evidence of apprehension on the part of the alleged victim such that the jury could find Defendant guilty. I will give the facts, issues,and court holdings for the case. Facts On the night in question,the victim and the defendant met at a bar. When the victim was ready to leave, the defendant ask for a ride

authorized by the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA), which permits police to obtain DNA samples from people arrested for, but not yet convicted of, violent crimes. After his DNA was processed, King was connected to an unsolved rape case from 2003 and convicted of rape. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the lower court’s decision was reversed because King’s right against suspicionless searches outweighed the identification purposes his DNA served in his 2009 case. Yet, the court maintained that

In Arizona, the decision of the court regarding relocation of a minor child often requires the application of Arizona Revised Statute 25-408 (I). The application of this statute depends upon two factors being in place: a written agreement or court order regarding custody of the minor child, and both parents currently residing in the state of Arizona. In Buencamino v. Noftsinger, the Arizona Court of Appeals turned to the law to evaluate the trial court’s ruling. A Brief History of the Case: Buencamino

the court case Maryland, Petitioner v. James Kulbicki, James Kulbicki fatally shot his 22-year-old-mistress. Kulbicki shot his mistress on the weekend before he was scheduled for a hearing on unpaid child support, which was tied into a paternity suit between Kulbicki and his mistress. At Kulbicki’s trial, which began in 1995, evidence was presented that the bullet removed from the head of Kulbicki’s mistress matched the bullet fragment that was left in Kulbicki’s truck. FBI Agent Ernest Peele, who

Brief Case Name: Norkunas v. Cochran, 398 Md. 1; 919 A. 2d 700, Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007. Facts: The case arose over the prospective purchase of a residence in Baltimore, Maryland. Buyers Rebecca Cochran, Robert Cochran, Hope Grove and Robert Grove sought to buy property from seller Eileen Norkunas. The buyers presented to Ms. Norkunas a letter of intent where they specified that the two parties would execute a standard Maryland Realtors contract to finalize the purchase. The parties signed

owner of a property known as 835 McHenry Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and Rebecca Cochran, who is the plaintiff, along with Robert Cochran and Robert and Hope Grove, were interested in buying her property. The Buyers, aided by a Real estate agent, send a letter of intent to the Seller, indicating the terms for the offer. The Letter of Intent stated the Buyers proposal to buy the property, and also specified that a standard Maryland Realtors contract would be delivered to the Seller within

306 Md. at 627). Maryland authorities consistently demonstrate that the necessary showing of foreseeability of harm required to make a prima facie showing that one is liable for the criminal activities of another is exceedingly high. For example, in Scott, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified the question of whether a landlord owes a duty to protect tenants from criminal activities in the common areas of an apartment complex to the Court of Appeals. Scott, 278 Md