Cases

915 A.2d 970 (2007) 397 Md. 2 David REIER v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION. No. 29, Sept. Term., 2006. Court of Appeals of Maryland. February 5, 2007. *972 Hillary Galloway Davis (Davis & Associates Law Office, P.A. of Towson), on brief, for petitioner/cross respondent. David M. L

STOUT, J., Plaintiffs, Norman and Elizabeth Ervin, issued a summons on June 24, 1977, against defendant, Albert C. Wood, consulting engineers, 1832 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Service was attempted July 25, 1977, but the return indicated: “Defendant not listed and unknown at this address.” On July 21, 1978, a complaint in assumpsit and trespass was filed. Service of this complaint was made on August 9, 197

435 F.Supp. 513 (1977) Francis X. McLAUGHLIN v. Lammot duPont COPELAND, Jr. and Lammot duPont Copeland, Sr. and E. Norman Veasey. Civ. No. B-76-475. United States District Court, D. Maryland. June 7, 1977. *514 *515 *516 *517</

441 F.Supp. 1235 (1977) Charles F. WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, a partnership of the State of Maryland, David R. Owen, managing partner, Cleaveland D. Miller, a partner, David F. Albright, a partner, and Norman P. Ramsey, William A. Fisher, Jr., John H. Mudd, George D. Hubbard, James P. Garland, James D. Peacock, David M. Buffington, William R. Dorsey, III, A. MacDonough Plant, Benjamin R. Goertemiller, H. Thomas Howell,

KILKENNY, District Judge: Presented for decision on this appeal and cross-appeal is the correctness of the District Court’s judgment denying petitions for review of certain orders of a referee in bankruptcy and adopting, as-those of the court, the findings and conclusions made and entered by the referee. The facts are not in serious di

Chase, District Judge. This is an action brought by the sole residuary legatee and devisee under the will of Norman E. Warren, deceased, to declare a reverter of a certain devise and bequest to the city of Friend, Nebraska. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and the trial court found against the plaintiff and ordered the action dismissed. This controversy arose under the provisions of paragraph 11 of the will o

THOMAS, District Judge (after stating the fa,cts as above). 1. It appears from evidence produced by the defendants, under special appearance, that service was made upon some twenty of the defendants. The returns made by the officers making such service show that this was done on July 29 and 31, 1922. The subpoenas were duly returned to the court by indorsement and subsequent filing. In each instance such return was timely and wi

UNITED STATES REFRACTORIES CORPORATION AND KISTLER LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.United States Refractories Corp. v. CommissionerDocket Nos. 5642, 12355.