Levin C. Bailey

This case involved a passenger's suit for personal injuries from a collision at a complex five-street intersection in Baltimore between a taxicab and a streetcar operated by the Baltimore Transit Company. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages against both the cab company and the transit company, but the trial court granted the transit company's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence of negligence by the streetcar operator was too vague, contradictory, and lacking in probative force to support a verdict, as the plaintiff's witness gave inconsistent accounts of the traffic light and vehicle positions. The court also upheld the exclusion of testimony about a traffic court conviction as improper for impeaching the plaintiff's own witness or proving facts in a civil case.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Glickman was convicted by a jury in Baltimore City of willfully obstructing passage on a public street during a union strike picket line and of assaulting an 18-year-old worker attempting to enter the worksite. The trial court suspended sentence on the obstruction count and imposed 10 days in jail plus a $50 fine on the assault count. On appeal, the court held that the prosecutor's reference to Glickman as a "Philadelphia foreigner" was not prejudicial after it was promptly corrected to reference a foreign jurisdiction, that objections to the form of the jury verdicts and hearkening were waived by failure to raise them at trial, and that the sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The judgments were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned the denial of a Class A Beer and Light Wine License application by Sam and Joseph Gianforte for their store at 5901 Reisterstown Road in Baltimore. The Board of License Commissioners denied the application, citing repeated prior denials of similar licenses in the area and a lack of demonstrated public necessity or inconvenience from disapproval. The Baltimore City Court affirmed the Board's decision, and the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the denial was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, and that it conflicted with prior rulings on similar license appeals. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the governing statute generally makes trial court decisions final and permits further appeal only when a point of law decided varies from prior decisions on the same question, which was not shown here given the fact-specific nature of the determinations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim by the owner of a taxicab against a transit company after a streetcar struck the parked cab on a Baltimore street, causing damage. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the court reversed that ruling and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of the jury's award. It held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presented factual questions of the streetcar operator's primary negligence and the cab driver's contributory negligence that were properly submitted to the jury rather than resolved as a matter of law. The court also noted procedural requirements for such motions but addressed the merits after assuming the motion was properly made.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a contract dispute in which Phillips Roofing Co. sought an injunction to restrain Maryland Broadcasting Co. from canceling a radio advertising agreement for its 'Memory Lane' program over Station WITH and interfering with the broadcasts. The Chancellor dismissed the bill after finding that the station validly exercised its right to cancel under a clause allowing termination for failure to make prompt monthly payments. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the appellant had complied with the payment provision by mailing its check for the April bill on May 17, 1944, consistent with the parties' established practice and the ordinary course of the mail, even if the check arrived after the contractual due date. Because the contract had already expired by the time of the decision, the court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the appellant was entitled to damages under the prayer for general relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by L. Grace Dinnis against the executor of Walter P. Reckord's estate seeking compensation for secretarial and housekeeping services allegedly performed at Reckord's request from 1929 to 1942, with the jury awarding her over $21,000. The sole issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit Reckord's account books into evidence, which the defendant offered solely to demonstrate that all entries were in Reckord's handwriting. The Court of Appeals held that the books should have been admitted because they constituted the best evidence on the material question of authorship, that any specific inadmissible entries could have been addressed separately rather than excluding the books entirely, and that the exclusion was prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial.

procedure