From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Artis v. Cyphers

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 18, 1994
336 Md. 561 (Md. 1994)

Summary

holding that the issue of whether a defendant is a public official is a matter of law for the court to the extent the issue does not hinge on factual disputes

Summary of this case from Lovelace v. Anderson

Opinion

No. 100, September Term, 1994.

November 18, 1994.

Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals (Circuit Court for Baltimore City), Joseph P. McCurdy, Jr., Judge.

Neal M. Janey, City Sol., Frank C. Derr, Associate Sol., William R. Phelan, Jr., Principal Counsel, Baltimore, for petitioner.

Kathleen Howard Meredith, P.C., David J. Wildberger (Semmes, Bowen Semmes), Baltimore, for respondent.

Submitted before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.


For reasons stated by Chief Judge Alan M. Wilner for the Court of Special Appeals in Artis v. Cyphers, 100 Md. App. 633, 642 A.2d 298 (1994), the judgment is summarily affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.


Summaries of

Artis v. Cyphers

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 18, 1994
336 Md. 561 (Md. 1994)

holding that the issue of whether a defendant is a public official is a matter of law for the court to the extent the issue does not hinge on factual disputes

Summary of this case from Lovelace v. Anderson
Case details for

Artis v. Cyphers

Case Details

Full title:JAMES W. ARTIS, JR., v. BONNIE LEE CYPHERS, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Nov 18, 1994

Citations

336 Md. 561 (Md. 1994)
649 A.2d 838

Citing Cases

Tamara A. v. Montgomery County

Although Shoemaker v. Smith involved an appeal under the collateral order doctrine, rather than an action for…

Shoemaker v. Smith

The most recent definitive discussion of the issue occurred in Artis v. Cyphers, 100 Md. App. 633, 642 A.2d…