by
An unreported opinion by the Maryland Appellate Court in the case of Carpenter v. Jenkins helps better understand the application of adverse possession law within the state.  We will use this case, which is now two years old, as a lens to understand adverse possession laws in Maryland.

It is tough to prove adverse possession in Maryland.   This case explores the stringent criteria that plaintiffs must satisfy to successfully assert ownership over disputed land through adverse possession. This is a legal principle that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions over time. The  Maryland appellate court’s examination of the evidence provides good insight into the practical challenges of proving adverse possession.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Carpenters did not meet the necessary legal thresholds. This opinion shows the need to demonstrate all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This decision not only clarifies the application of adverse possession laws in Maryland but also serves as a guide for both legal practitioners and property owners about the complexity and difficulty of establishing claims based on these grounds.

Continue reading

by

A Maryland appellate court has affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action against MedStar Health, ruling that the patient data allegedly shared with Facebook and Google does not qualify as protected “contents” under Maryland’s wiretap statute. The decision is careful, technically sound, and entirely unsatisfying if you believe that when a hospital promises to protect your information, it should actually mean something.

The plaintiff was a MedStar patient who used the myMedStar patient portal to view lab results, radiology images, COVID testing outcomes, and prescription information. He alleged that MedStar embedded tracking code on its patient portal and public website that collected IP addresses, cookie values, device attributes, URLs, and login activity and transmitted that data to Facebook and Google without patient consent. He argued this violated the Maryland Electronic Surveillance Act, the state’s version of the federal wiretap law.

The theory was straightforward. MedStar promised patients privacy. MedStar then allegedly bugged its own website with tracking software that leaked patient activity to third parties. If that is not an interception of electronic communications, what is?

Continue reading

by

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed climate change lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County against some of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world.

The plaintiffs were not asking the court to regulate emissions. They were not challenging EPA permits. They were not trying to set environmental policy. They were alleging fraud. P. The fossil fuel companies knew their products were causing catastrophic harm, concealed that knowledge for decades, and profited while the planet burned.

The court said none of that matters. In a 5-2 decision, the majority ruled that state law cannot be used to impose liability for global greenhouse gas pollution, no matter how the claims are framed. Federal law displaces and preempts the local governments’ claims. End of story. Case dismissed.

Continue reading

by

This page look at the newly developing Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits. Depo Provera is a female contraceptive injection that is commonly known as the birth control shot. Millions of women in the U.S. have used Depo Provera at some point in their lives. New evidence has shown that Depo Provera can cause a specific type of brain tumor called meningiomas.

This has sparked a growing wave of Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits. Based on the size of the potential plaintiff field and the strength of the causation evidence, this is expected to be a significant new mass tort. We will examine the allegations in the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits and discuss the potential settlement value of these cases.

News and Updates on Depo Provera Litigation

Continue reading

by

If someone has wrongfully and intentionally caused you great emotional harm in Maryland, you may have a claim for the intentional inflection of emotional distress.

Maryland law, however, does not make it easy to bring an intention infliction of emotional distress claim.  To bring this tort, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “truly devastating effect” from the defendant’s behavior.  The emotional response must be so awful that “no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.”

It is also important to remember that emotional distress can be recovered as part of damages arising from tortious conduct but is not recognized as an independent tort. Emotional distress claims must be tied to another actionable tortious act.

Continue reading

by

In Maryland, as in many other states, the regulations regarding lunch breaks are an essential aspect of employment law. These laws are designed to ensure that workers receive adequate rest periods during their workday, contributing to their overall well-being and productivity.

The specifics of Maryland’s lunch break laws provide a framework for both employers and employees to understand their rights and responsibilities.

Legal Framework of Lunch Break Law

Continue reading

by

The Trans Health Equity Act, also known as House Bill 283, was passed by the Maryland House of Delegates with a majority of 93-37 votes. This bill mandates the inclusion of gender-affirming treatment for transgender individuals in Maryland’s Medicaid program.

The next step was for the measure to be considered by the Maryland Senate. Del. Anne Kaiser (D-Montgomery County), who introduced HB 283, expressed pride in the decision, calling it a significant step forward for transgender healthcare in the state. The bill passed.

So starting January 1, 2024, Maryland’s Trans Health Equity Act will become effective, making gender-affirming care more accessible to the state’s estimated 94,000 transgender and nonbinary residents. This law will expand Medicaid coverage to include more types of gender-affirming procedures.

Continue reading

by

In Ceron v. Kamara, the Appellate Court of Maryland addressed an appeal following a motor vehicle accident in Montgomery County.  The big issue on appeal is the trial court’s decision to permit the defendant’s counsel to introduce reasoning for expert consultation during closing arguments, which was not previously in evidence, questioning the fairness of this action. The appellate court – to my surprise, anyway – affirmed the trial court’s judgment, despite assuming potential error.

I get it, the court is trying to find balance between the wide latitude given to attorneys in closing arguments and the requirement that these arguments be based solely on evidence presented during the trial.  But I think the court comes out on the wrong side.

Facts

Continue reading

by

In a recent unreported decision by the Appellate Court of Maryland, Arrow Parking Corp., et al. v. Cade, a civil action stemming from a premises liability claim sheds light on pivotal legal doctrines, including the duty of care in negligence, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, and the preservation of issues for appellate review.

This case offers a comprehensive overview of how appellate courts approach these legal concepts, especially in the context of negligence and premises liability.

Facts of Arrow Parking v. Cade

Continue reading

by
In a recent unreported opinion by the Maryland Appellate Court, the case of Sarpong v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Case No. CAL21-09252), the court, presided over by Judges Reed, Ripken, and Salmon, upheld a previous decision by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

This decision confirmed the Maryland Insurance Administration’s (MIA) ruling that supported Nationwide’s denial of Mr. Sarpong’s insurance claim. The claim was filed following the loss of his personal property during an eviction.

MIA Appeals Process

Continue reading