Blog Archive: May 2014

Posted on Fri, 2014-05-30 15:02 by JGL Associate Attorney in Constitutional Law, Evidence, Maryland Law


On May 27, 2014, in State v. Hailes,the Maryland Court of Special Appeals made important rulings regarding several evidentiary issues. The Hailes court held that a “hard blink” can be a statement, that a “Dying Declaration” does not require actual imminent death, only a belief of imminent death, and that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not suppress a dying declaration.[1]


Posted on Fri, 2014-05-30 14:04 by Reza Golesorkhi in Family Law, Maryland Law

jpeg


In my previous post I talked about the Islamic concept of Mehr, Mehrieh or Dowry.  This post will discuss how Maryland Courts may address the issue of Mehr or Mehrieh when an Iranian family, married in Iran, and now living in Maryland, files for divorce in Maryland.


Posted on Fri, 2014-05-23 14:26 by Vijay Mani in Civil Rights, Labor Employment

Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts, in ruling with the majority that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, wrote “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.” Even if true, this statement does not speak to the prevalence of subtly discriminatory actions, often based on hidden, deep-se

Posted on Wed, 2014-05-14 23:25 by Eleanor A. Hunt in Civil Procedure, Family Law

divorce_kellogg396


Once a divorce matter has been filed and the Court sets a trial date, most clients mistakenly mark their calendar with the belief that upon conclusion of the trial, every aspect of their divorce case will be over.  However, if the client or their spouse has retirement or pension accounts that constitute marital property and are ordered to be distributed from one party to another (in full or in part), then there will most likely be several post-trial steps associated with the distribution that must occur before the case can be officially considered concluded.


 


images


Can an employer be liable for racist and sexist comments by a client or business partner—someone who does not even work for the employer—toward one of its employees?


Under a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is “yes.” In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a decision issued on April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit recognized that an employer can be liable for harassment perpetrated by a third-party against one of its employees.


Posted on Mon, 2014-05-05 13:41 by Levi S. Zaslow in Civil Litigation, Maryland Law, Personal Injury


In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals of Maryland recently held in Blackburn Ltd. Partnership v. Paul,[1] that all Maryland public pools have a duty to comply with Maryland’s swimming pool barrier safety regulations.[2] The Court recognized that the pool barrier safety regulations were designed for the protection of young children from accidental drowning and near-drowning by limiting or delaying their access to swimming pools, spas and hot tubs.


protective_order


This past session, the Maryland legislature enacted a number of changes that affect both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. Although certainly not a comprehensive overhaul, the new legislation touches on several important areas that affect the public’s ability to obtain and extend both peace and protective orders, as well as enhanced penalties for those who violate such orders.


Contact

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer

The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

˅