SHETH, et al. v. Horn, et al.

May 25, 2017

OUTCOME: Defendant's jury verdict on $6 million claim (including punitive damages) and successful jury verdict on counterclaim

UNDER A FOOT PLANT CO. V. EXTERIOR DESIGN

May 11, 2017

OUTCOME: Plaintiff's jury verdict: $900K actual damages; $300K statutory damages

ANDREW PAUL LEONARD v. STEMTECH HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.

Oct 11, 2013

OUTCOME: $1.6 Million awarded to the Plaintiff

Jan Berlage of Gohn, Hankey & Stichel represented a photographer whose copyrighted photograph of stem cells was widely distributed without his consent for seven years on the website of a company that p ... roduces stem-cell supplements. The jury found direct, vicarious, and contributory liability in favor of the Plaintiff.

Wallace v. Trost

Jun 25, 2013

OUTCOME: Lower Court Affirmed

Andrew Scott Wallace appeals the district court's order denying his motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006) and granting defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the rec ... ord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wallace v. Trost , No. 8:13-cv-00101-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

Zorzit v. 915 W. 36th Street

Feb 02, 2011

OUTCOME: Remanded

This appeal arises from a decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting the abatement of interest accruing on the unpaid balance of the purchase price at a foreclosure sale from the date of ... such sale to the date of settlement. Appellant, John Zorzit, is the court-appointed substitute trustee who presided over the foreclosure sale. Appellees, 915 W. 36th Street, LLC and 919 W. 36th Street, LLC,1 are the purchasers of the foreclosure properties. Appellant presents one question for our review, which we have slightly rephrased: Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in abating the interest incurred by appellees from the date of the foreclosure sale to the date of settlement? For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the case for further proceedings.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Blanton

Jan 12, 2006

OUTCOME: Appeal Granted

TAX CREDIT – SECTION 10-703(a) DOES NOT APPLY TO LOCAL INCOME TAX. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County erred in its interpretation of Section 10-703(a) of the Tax-General Article. The Maryland T ... ax Court was correct in affirming the Comptroller’s decision that the tax credit against State income taxes applied exclusiv ely to reduce State income taxes. We hold that the tax credit may be applied only to reduce the amount of a Maryland resident’s State income tax liability and that the credit, pursuant to Section 10-703(a), does not reduce the amount owed by a Maryland resident for local income tax.