Access and Review State & Federal Legal Cases

The principals and partners at Levin & Gann review several cases and outcomes every month and strive to feature the most pertinent case and decision information on our website. Some of these cases may relate directly to situations you are involved in or are considering. So, take a few moments to look over our most recent postings. For the most current information, make sure to contact Levin & Gann directly by calling 410.321.0600 or filling out our confidential contact form on this website.

DOROTHY M. TRACEY
v.
ANTHONY K. SOLESKY AND IRENE SOLESKY, AS PARENTS,

GUARDIANS, AND NEXT FRIENDS OF DOMINIC SOLESKY, A MINOR.

No. 53, September Term, 2011

Court of Appeals of Maryland

On April, 26, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided the case of Tracey v. Solesky, in which it determined that Pit Bull Terriers (American Staffordshire Terriers) and cross-bred pit bull dogs are inherently dangerous. When a owner or landlord of such dogs is proven to have had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, of the presence of such dog on the leased premises, the elements of liability against the owner or landlord is established. In other words, the Court of Appeals has imposed strict liability on one who owns, controls or harbors a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull for attacks by the dog on or from the property. It is no longer necessary to establish that the owner or landlord had knowledge that the specific animal involved is dangerous, pit bulls and cross-bred put bulls have no been determined to be dangerous as a matter of law.

Stay tuned. We will follow up with recommendations in the future. in the short-term, Landlordds who allow pets on their leased premises may wish to immediately notify their tenants that pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are not allowed and that anyone harboring a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull must remove the dog from the leased premises immediately.

If you have any questions about this Client Alert, please contact Debra Cruz, rated Martindale Hubbell AV PreEminent Litigator for 10 years, at 410-321-4642. Read Full Case >

EMMA ELDER V. CHERRY ELDER SMITH, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF COLONEL PERCY ELDER, SR., NO. 34

September Term, 2009

Estates And Trusts – Priority Of Liens – Jurisdiction Of

Orphans’ Court

Emma Elder and Colonel Percy Elder were married in 1976, but after twenty-six years of marriage and the birth of two children, they were divorced in the Baltimore City Circuit Court in 2002. Emma was awarded a total of $31,500 as a marital award and was to receive one-half of the proceeds of a sale of property located in Anne Arundel County known as “Beales Trail.” Emma Elder’s $31,500 marital award was not reduced to judgment and remained unsatisfied at the time of Mr. Elder’s death. Mr. Elder died on November 8, 2005 in Baltimore County. Subsequently, Emma obtained an order from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City reducing her marital award to a judgment against Colonel Percy Elder.  Read Full Case >

ART WOOD ENTERPRISES
v.
WISEBURG COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 1782, September Term, 1990

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Citizens' community group challenged decision of County Board of Appeals affirming approval of development plan by county review group.  The Circuit Court, Baltimore County, Alfred L. Brennan, Sr., J., found that approval of plan was not authorized and remanded.  Appeal was taken.  The Court of Special Appeals, Harrell, J., held that:  (1) county review group's approval of plan was not conditional, even though group would consider further evidence concerning plan;  (2) group's final action to approve plan was not taken in closed meeting in violation of open meeting law;  and (3) county review group was not required to refer plan to county planning board. Read Full Case >

DOROTHY SURINA, ET AL.
v.
LONG GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATION, INC., IT AL.

No. 1348, September Term, 2005

Unreported in the Court of Special Appeals

In this alleged "cross-over zoning" dispute, we must decide whether a stormwater managment pond designed to serve new homes developed on property zoned R.C.5 (Rural-Residential) can be located on adjacent property zoned R.C.2 (Rural-Agricultural). The Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed the Baltimore County Board of Appeals' approval of subdivision plans that place a stormwater management (SWM) system on R.C.2 land, thereby making it possible to develop the adjacent R.C.5 land. We agree with the Board that there is no zoning impediment to such plans. Read Full Case >