Legal Opinion

Applied Industrial Technologies v. Ludemann

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 2, 2002No. 1673, Sept. Term, 2001PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARBERA, Judge.

The principal issue we decide in this appeal is whether the date of a work-related accident must be identified with certainty in order for an employee to recover benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. We hold that such certainty is not required. We also decide the propriety of the court’s denial of a mid-trial continuance request that came in the midst of a tragic national occurrence — the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack upon our country. We hold that the judge exercised proper discretion in denying a continuance and thereby allowing the jury, as it had requested, to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wilhelm v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  2. Klauenberg v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  4. Lohss and Sprenkle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  5. Holman v. Kelly Catering, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1994

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Edgewood Management Corp. v. JacksonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  2. Board of Education v. SpradlinCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  3. Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc. v. Standard Equipment Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. Saadeh v. Saadeh, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  5. Espina v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2013

11 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