Thomas B. Finan

The case involved a dispute over approximately 50 acres of land claimed by Dawson and Ruth Baker but sought by Talbot County and the Town of Easton for use as a clear zone at the Easton-Talbot County Airport. The county and town filed a bill to quiet title, obtained a decree pro confesso after the Bakers failed to timely respond or retain counsel, and secured a final decree in September 1968 ordering a survey, enjoining the Bakers from the property, and assessing costs. The Bakers later moved to set aside the decree, arguing they believed they were represented and lacked understanding of the proceedings, but the trial court denied the motion after finding no fraud, mistake, or irregularity and that the Bakers had no meritorious claim to the land based on deeds, surveys, and long-term use by the appellees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the Bakers knew the status of the case and failed to meet the standards for vacating the enrolled decree.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a professional malpractice claim by taxpayers against their accounting firm for negligently filing a Form 2553 too late to elect subchapter S tax treatment for their corporation, resulting in IRS denial of the election and later assessment of deficiencies. The suit was filed in 1968, more than three years after the alleged negligence in 1960. The court held that the statute of limitations barred the action, applying the discovery rule to conclude that the cause of action accrued no later than July 22, 1964, when the IRS notified the plaintiffs of the tax deficiency assessment, at which point they were aware of the harm and needed to incur legal expenses. The court reasoned that under its precedents extending the discovery rule to professional malpractice, the limitations period begins when the plaintiffs discover the wrong, even if the full extent of damages remains uncertain, to balance plaintiffs' rights with protection against stale claims.

proceduretaxestorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a mechanic's lien claimed by a paint supplier against the owner of an apartment complex for materials provided to a subcontractor. The owner challenged the adequacy of the notice of intent to claim the lien under Maryland law, arguing it did not meet statutory requirements. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the supplier, holding that the notice substantially complied with the statute because the paint deliveries constituted an indivisible contract, allowing the 90-day notice period to run from the final delivery. The reasoning focused on evidence of ongoing dealings and communications indicating a single transaction rather than separate contracts.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Brice v. State, the defendant faced four indictments for robbery with a deadly weapon, perverted practice, rape, and murder, and entered pre-trial pleas and motions including not guilty by reason of insanity, double jeopardy, and challenges to the grand jury's evidence and use of his statements. The trial court transferred him for psychiatric evaluation but never ruled on the double jeopardy and grand jury motions despite directing the parties to address them, and the case proceeded to trial where the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the failure to obtain a ruling on the motions meant the issues were not properly resolved or preserved, particularly in a capital case, and that the situation was analogous to precedents requiring a definitive ruling before the close of proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff injured when a car owned by the defendants rolled down an incline in an alley and struck him after being parked for five to ten minutes. The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence in failing to properly secure the vehicle and allowing a minor relative to play in it, relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without presenting witnesses or evidence about how the car was parked or any third-party involvement. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, which the appellate court affirmed, holding that res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the facts indicated a possible intervening act by a third party and the plaintiff had not excluded other causes or shown the defendants' exclusive control.

torts & liabilityprocedure