In Brooks v. Euclid Systems Corp., retired investor Richard Brooks lost his retirement savings after his financial advisor, Michael Keating, invested the funds in high-risk, unregistered securities offered by Euclid, Ridgewood, and Cyclean, contrary to Brooks's instructions for safe investments. Brooks sued the issuers, alleging they were vicariously liable for Keating's misrepresentations and negligence because Keating or his employer Delta acted as their actual or apparent agents, and also claiming direct liability for the issuers' failure to disclose material facts. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the issuers on all claims. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on the agency-based vicarious liability claims, finding no evidence of an actual or apparent agency relationship in the selling agreements or other facts, but vacated and remanded the direct nondisclosure claims because the lower court had not addressed them.
The case involved a challenge to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Willards granting variances to Eller Media Company to replace and erect billboards on a commercial property. Superior Outdoor Signs, Inc. and Scott P. Gregory appealed the circuit court's affirmance of the Board's decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants lacked standing to seek judicial review because Superior did not participate in the agency proceeding and Gregory, who paid taxes outside the town, did not qualify as "any taxpayer" under the applicable statute (Md. Code art. 66B § 4.08). The core reasoning focused on interpreting the standing requirements for appeals from zoning board decisions, requiring either aggrievement or taxpayer status within the relevant jurisdiction.
This case involved a dispute between two developers, Rustic Ridge and Washington Homes, over ownership of a nearly 90-acre parcel in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Washington Homes sued for a declaratory judgment establishing its ownership and for damages based on slander of title after Rustic Ridge recorded a lis pendens. The trial court granted partial summary judgment declaring Washington Homes the owner, and Rustic Ridge appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was an unappealable interlocutory judgment because the two counts sought different remedies for the same underlying cause of action based on one set of facts, and thus did not qualify as separate claims under Maryland Rule 2-602(b).
This case concerns a dispute between the developers of the Blakehurst Life Care Community and neighboring residents over proposed property improvements, including construction of a garden shed and additional parking spaces, that were subject to a recorded restrictive covenant agreement limiting the size, scope, and process for changes. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued injunctions requiring removal of the shed and barring the parking expansion, and awarded attorney’s fees to the neighbors. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the shed was a structure violating the agreement’s open-space provisions and that the parking plans required formal addenda approval rather than unilateral implementation, consistent with the covenant’s terms and prior administrative and judicial rulings interpreting it.
In Davidson v. Microsoft Corp., Maryland consumers sued Microsoft on behalf of a class, alleging that the company overcharged them for its Windows 98 operating system by exercising monopoly power, in violation of the Maryland Antitrust Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The circuit court granted Microsoft's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers who bought from OEMs rather than directly from Microsoft, could not recover under the antitrust statute because the Illinois Brick rule bars such suits to avoid duplicative recovery and complex damage calculations. The court also ruled that violations of the Antitrust Act are not included in the list of deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act. The decision relied on federal antitrust precedents and a parallel federal multidistrict litigation ruling applying the same indirect-purchaser bar.
United Book Press sued Maryland Composition for breach of contract and indemnity after the typesetter omitted the K section from a directory it was hired to produce, leading Strathmore to refuse payment for the books. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case, relying on doctrines including judicial and equitable estoppel, waiver, merger, accord and satisfaction, and the preclusive effect of a confessed judgment that United Book Press had obtained against Strathmore. The appellate court reversed, concluding that general contract principles, including the duty to mitigate damages, govern the dispute and that the cited doctrines do not bar the claim, and it remanded the case for a new trial.