6 results for 'judge:"Arthur"'.
J. Arthur finds the lower court properly dismissed a matter due to general jurisdiction, but improperly dismissed it on grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction. A former student-athlete, also a Maryland resident, filed suit against the NCAA seeking to recover damages for a degenerative neurological condition he alleges is linked to the years he played football at Rutgers University. The former student-athlete argues the NCAA is subject to both general and personal jurisdiction in Maryland despite the NCAA being headquartered in Indiana, but the lower court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the matter due to the NCAA’s headquarters being located in Indiana. While the instant court agrees the NCAA is not subject to general jurisdiction, the former student-athlete did satisfactorily demonstrate that it is subject to specific personal jurisdiction based on the NCAA’s rulemaking activities in Maryland, and that due process will not be violated by answering the former student-athletes claims. Reversed in part.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 0866, Categories: Negligence, Due Process, Jurisdiction
J. Arthur agrees with the lower court's decision to uphold an agreement between an attorney and the law firm she worked for, which ordered her to pay the firm fees she had withheld from it after she left the practice. The attorney argues that the agreement is unethical and therefore unenforceable because the practice took too large a percentage of the payment she received from the client. She withheld over $700,000 as a result. Because her client opted to continue working with her after she left the firm, she argues she is entitled to the client's payments. However, because the client started his legal relationship with the attorney when she was part of the firm, the agreement states that the firm is still owed a higher percentage of the client's payments, plus interest accrued.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: CAL-18-36527, Categories: Contract, Attorney Discipline
J. Arthur upholds the lower court's determination that an appeal should be heard in Pennsylvania (PA), not in Maryland (MD), after a realty investment trust demanded payment from a limited liability corporation because the trust's commercial tenant in PA defaulted. The corporation filed suit in Montgomery County, MD, seeking a declaration that it does not have liability on the guaranty, and moments later, the trust filed suit in Montgomery County, PA, the location of the property. In this case, the trust anticipated the corporation's filing in MD, so filed its own in PA because it thought MD may review the corporation's damages claims with more scrutiny than PA. Typically in a case like this, the rule is to proceed with litigation in the county where either party filed first. However, in this case, because the trust filed in PA in anticipation of the corporation's MD filing, the first-to-file rule will not be used and PA is the appropriate venue.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 485946-V, Categories: Civil Procedure, Corporations, Trusts
J. Arthur finds that the lower court improperly dismissed a petition after finding that it did not fall under the definition of extraordinary cause when defendant's attorney failed to timely file for post-conviction relief. Defendant's attorney filed the petition one day before the 10-year deadline expired. However, upon checking the state's electronic court system, she found her filing had not properly processed and she had to submit it late. The attorney's actions constitute malpractice and demonstrate extraordinary cause. Vacated.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 03-K-08-002390, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Ineffective Assistance, Murder
J. Arthur partially reverses the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief in an attempted murder case because defendant made a valid claim that he may use a subpoena to demand the state provide Brady material and internal affairs files for a police officer who testified against him. Because the state was obligated to produce the information demanded by defendant during his criminal trial, he is allowed the subpoena. Reversed in part.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 111025040-42, Categories: Evidence, Firearms, Discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Arthur disagrees with the lower court's decision that a county's housing commission must go through the court to obtain permission to sell some land containing two burial plots to a developer. Although a local African-American cemetery coalition was initially granted its mandamus to stop the sale, the commission invokes a state statute which allows it to sell the plots since they had already been used as a parking lot in the past. Also, the proceedings are moot because during the process, the buyer pulled out, cancelling the sale. Reversed.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 486734V, Categories: Property, Business Practices, Injunction