Legal Opinion

Falcinelli v. Cardascia

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 24, 1995No. 126PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODOWSKY, Judge.

When the jury in this negligence action returned a verdict in excess of the amount of damages claimed in the complaint, the stage was set for a civil procedure entanglement. The trial court permitted the plaintiff to amend to conform the amount claimed to the verdict, and the trial court later denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of that grant of leave to amend. In order to unravel the contentions of the parties we must consider when final judgment was entered, the scope of review, and the power of a circuit court to enter judgment in the amount of a verdict that…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Attrill v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  2. Estep v. Georgetown Leather DesignCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  3. B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  4. Hardy v. MettsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  5. Sullivan v. JordanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Scott v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  2. Minh-Vu Hoang v. Hewitt Avenue Associates, LLCCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  3. Hoile v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  4. Holzhauer v. Saks & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. James v. ButlerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API