Insights
Post-Repair Diminution in Value Claims: ‘Stigma Damages’ in Future Cases
August 2022 | By Stephen S. McCloskey and Thomas V. McCarron
Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on August 16, 2022. The scope of an owner’s claims for damages in construction defect litigation against the general contractor and its subcontractors is often thought of as the costs of repair, plus any consequential damages such as lost profits or rents if not waived in the contract. But what about the ability of an owner to seek recovery…
Maryland Court of Appeals Rules that Circumstantial Evidence is Sufficient to Authenticate Exemplar Evidence Procured Through Online Sales
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 Rule 5-901 in order to admit an “exemplar” into evidence…
Cocktail Hour…A Challenge to Baltimore City’s Hours of Operation Limitations
July 2022
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 license holders only operate until 10 P.M., regardless of when…
Maryland Court of Special Appeals Declines to Interpret “Definite Proof” as a Higher Standard of Proof for a Hernia Related Workers Compensation Action
July 2022
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, the court affirmed that application of the preponderance of the…
Admit or Exclude? State v. Matthews Explains a Post-Rochkind Maryland
July 2022
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 (Md. June 22, 2022) (hereinafter “Matthews” or “State v. Matthews”)…
New Disclosure Requirements Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1
July 2022
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 Rule 7.1 was to alert judges of potential financial interests…