Hamilton v. Dackman
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtNazarian, J.
The principle seems straightforward enough: a plaintiff who can make a prima facie ease that a defendant’s misconduct is probably a proximate cause of his injury should have his day in court. Applying this principle to the real-life facts of lead paint cases has often proven challenging, though, especially where the plaintiff lived or spent time in more than one dwelling of potential exposure. Raymond V. Hamilton, Jr. (“Raymond”) appeals the summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, in favor of the appellees. The circuit court held that Raymond had not produced…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- King v. BankerdCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Lynx, Inc. v. Ordnance Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Peterson v. UnderwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
- Koste v. Town of OxfordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hamilton v. Kirson Alston v. 2700 VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Rowhouses, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- Rogers v. Home Equity USA, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Rochkind v. StevensonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.