From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jun 7, 2005
387 Md. 351 (Md. 2005)

Opinion

No. 124, September Term, 2004.

June 7, 2005.

Stephen B. Caplis (Amy E. Askew, Whiteford, Taylor Preston, L.L.P., Baltimore, on brief), for petitioner.

C. Richard Cranwell (H. Keith Moore, Cranwell, Moore Bullington, P.L.C., Roanoke, VA, Guy M. Albertini, Albertini, Singleton, Gendler, Darby, Baltimore, on brief), for respondent.

John Parker Sweeney, T. Sky Woodward, Meagan Newman, Miles Stockbridge, Baltimore, Joe G. Hollingsworth, Stephen A. Klein, Robert E. Johnston, Spriggs Hollingsworth, Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, DC, George S. Tolley, III, Dugan Babij Tolley, LLC, Timonium, amicus curiae.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.


The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 7th day of June, 2005,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.


Summaries of

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jun 7, 2005
387 Md. 351 (Md. 2005)
Case details for

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. Donald E. MILLER

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jun 7, 2005

Citations

387 Md. 351 (Md. 2005)
875 A.2d 702

Citing Cases

Sissoko v. State

The State maintains that the Frye–Reed ruling is immaterial, as Frye–Reed did not control, and the Rule 5–702…

Sissoko v. State

The State maintains that the Frye-Reed ruling is immaterial, as Frye-Reed did not control, and the Rule 5-702…