Legal Opinion

Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 30, 1990No. 142, September Term, 1989PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ADKINS, Judge.

Aggrieved when a jury awarded it only $4,000 instead of the $1.1 million it was seeking, Petitioner, Harford Sands, Inc. (Harford Sands) sought a new trial because a juror had obtained certain information from a source extraneous to the trial. The Circuit Court for Harford County rejected that plaint, as did the Court of Special Appeals. So do we. Balancing “the probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case,” Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 420, 470 A.2d 802, 809 (1984), we hold that the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Oxtoby v. McGowanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  2. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  3. Christ v. WempeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. Palestroni v. JacobsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  5. Safeway Trails, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  2. Carter v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Crane v. DunnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  4. Flores v. BellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Stokes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

10 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