Legal Opinion
Nelson v. Carroll
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 15, 1998No. 98, Sept. Term, 1997PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
The petitioner, Charles A. (“Pee-Wee”) Nelson (Nelson), contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred in an unreported opinion when it refused to consider the merits of Nelson’s contention that he was entitled under Maryland Rule 2-519(a) (Motion for judgment) to judgment in his favor as plaintiff in a civil action alleging battery. 1 At issue is whether, as held by the Court of Special Appeals, Nelson failed to preserve his contention for appellate review under Maryland Rule 8-131(a) 2 because Nelson did not “state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- K & K Management, Inc. v. Chul Woo LeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
- Warfield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
- Kendall v. Nationwide InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Franklin Square Hospital v. LaubachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Saba v. DarlingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Nelson v. CarrollCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Sage Title Group, LLC v. RomanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Slick v. ReineckerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Giant of Maryland, LLC v. TaylorCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.