Legal Opinion · Dissent

SOLESKY v. Tracey

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 5, 2011No. 2207, September Term, 2009Published

1DissentRubin, J.

I respectfully dissent from part II of the panel majority’s opinion. To be sure, the incident of April 28, 2007, was horrific. In my judgment, however, the circuit court correctly concluded that the evidence presented at trial by the plaintiffs was legally insufficient to sustain a verdict against the landlord. As a consequence, the circuit court properly granted the landlord’s motion for judgment under Maryland Rule 2-519 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. See Veytsman v. New York Palace, Inc., 170 Md.App. 104, 112, 906 A.2d 1028 (2006).

The majority begins its opinion by stating that…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Dias v. City and County of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
  2. Fowler v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  3. Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  4. Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  5. Hiner v. MojicaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006

17 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