Archive for July 2022

When there is a significant lapse in time or when a company decides to discontinue a particular product, it can be challenging for Plaintiffs in civil actions to substantiate a claim that a product caused their injury if they no longer have the item in their possession. In this event, Plaintiffs have relied on Maryland…

For more information, contact Paul N. Farquharson.   H.B. No. 954, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., Chapter 389 (Md. 2022) (hereinafter “Chapter 389”) — went into effect on July 1, 2020 restricting Class B-D-7 beer, wine, and liquor license holders (tavern operators) from operating their businesses at certain hours. The law required that these types of…

In February 2022, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed the term “definite proof” and the “immediacy” element in § 9-504 of the Labor and Employment Article and, whether the evidence presented to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) met that standard. In this case, UPS, et. al. v. Strothers, 235 Md. App. 708,…

For more information, contact Paul N. Farquharson. Before 2020, Maryland applied the Fyre-Reed standard to expert witness testimony regarding scientific evidence. Recently, in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), the Maryland Court of Appeals announced the adoption of the standard set forth in Daubert. In State v. Matthews, No. 15, Sept. 2021, 2022 WL 2236139…

Origins of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Since 2002, Rule 7.1 has required nongovernmental corporate parties in federal court to file a disclosure statement that either: identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock; OR states that there is no such corporation. The intent of…