May punitive damages be entered against an employer whose employee engaged in dishonest acts?  In the view of the Maryland Court of Appeals, if the employee acted within the scope of his employment when he did so, the answer is – Yes.

While with his driving instructor, a student driver is involved in an auto accident.  May the driving instructor be responsible?  In Maryland, the answer is found in the 1970 decision of Greenway v. Graft.

While you might expect the phrase “sovereign immunity” to live in the palaces of kings and queens, you may be surprised to learn that this ancient royal doctrine also rides DC Metro.

The Maryland Court of Appeals holds that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is entitled to immunity from tort claims arising out of its maintenance decisions.

Where evidence exists to generate both defenses, a jury must have the opportunity on a verdict sheet to consider these separate and distinct defenses.

Last month, the Court of Special Appeals rejected a tortfeasor’s argument that damages awarded in a survival action and in a wrongful death action should be aggregated before Maryland’s non-economic damages cap is applied.

Presently, Maryland is one of only five “contributory negligence” states, meaning that in a negligence action, a plaintiff who was in any way negligent is barred from recovery, even when the plaintiff was only “1% negligent.”  That may soon change.

"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question." – Yogi Berra.

If every dog has its day, pit bull owners wonder when the Maryland General Assembly will consider legislation to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the breed “inherently dangerous.”

Affirming the decision of Judge Ronald Silkworth of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland’s highest Court ordered yesterday that the Maryland Dream Act should proceed to referendum in November.

Before voters can decide the fate of Maryland's Dream Act, the Court of Appeals must decide whether voters can decide in the first place.

Believing that the Court of Appeals barked up the wrong tree in declaring pit bulls to be "inherently dangerous," legislative leaders have formed a task force to find ways around the controversial decision.

“Juries decide facts, Judges decide law” seems so basic, it is hard to believe that up until 1980, Maryland juries were told otherwise.   

In an opinion sure to infuriate pit bull owners and scare landlords, Maryland’s highest court has made owning pit bulls the equivalent of possessing canine TNT.