J. H. Stables, Inc. v. Robinson

3 Citing cases

  1. LaChance v. Service Trucking Co.

    208 F. Supp. 656 (D. Md. 1962)   Cited 5 times

    This is not surprising, because some states, like Maryland, apply a rigid rule, whereas the federal rule requires a balancing of the various factors involved. The Maryland state practice is controlled by Maryland Rule 104 g. See also J. H. Stable, Inc. v. Robinson, 221 Md. 365, 157 A.2d 451, which refers to Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 37 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192, but not to Lamb v. Schmitt. In the case at bar the weights on the side of denying the immunity and sustaining the service are unusually heavy and over-balance the weights on the other side of the scale.

  2. Attorney Grievance v. Richardson

    350 Md. 354 (Md. 1998)   Cited 36 times
    Filing frivolous and malicious lawsuit against judges who had ruled against him in previous actions

    " Proceeding from the premise that, because the hearing of disciplinary charges is governed by the same rules of law, evidence and procedure applicable to civil trials, the respondent insists, citing J. H. Stables, Inc. v. Robinson, 221 Md. 365, 157 A.2d 451 (1960) and a number of other, older Maryland cases, "the common law of Maryland based upon sound public policy in aid of the due administration of justice that during such time as a nonresident is in Maryland for the purpose of testifying as a witness or for prosecuting or defending an action the nonresident is not subject to service of process" applies. Not one of the cases the respondent cites is an attorney discipline matter.

  3. Martelly v. State

    230 Md. 341 (Md. 1963)   Cited 25 times

    At argument before us appellant maintained that the motion which he filed to suppress the evidence before trial of itself preserved the issue of the admissibility of the evidence at the subsequent trial and on this appeal. Apparently the theory is that under Maryland Rule 725 b the motion raised a defense capable of determination before trial (see Rizzo v. State, 201 Md. 206, 93 A.2d 280 (1952), involving a motion for return of seized articles, and J. H. Stables, Inc. v. Robinson, 221 Md. 365, 157 A.2d 451 (1960), dealing with a motion to quash a writ of summons), and that therefore the order of the lower court denying the motion was an interlocutory order open to review, under Rule 887, upon this appeal from the final judgment. Asner v. State, 193 Md. 68, 65 A.2d 881 (1949), was pointed to as authority for the proposition that a motion to quash a search warrant (akin to the motion to suppress evidence in the instant case), denied by the lower court before trial, preserved the question of the admissibility of the evidence at the trial and on appeal.