Ficker v. Curran

2 Citing cases

  1. Ficker v. Curran

    119 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that “the Supreme Court observed in Bates that the dissemination of advertising information to the public had the potential to contribute substantially to fair legal process.... Similarly, in Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Com'n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91, 110, 110 S.Ct. 2281, 2293, 110 L.Ed.2d 83, the Court noted that such advertising ‘facilitates the consumer's access to legal services and thus better serves the administration of justice’ ”

    Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. Prof. Section(s) 10 605.1(a)(2). The district court granted Ficker and Boehm's motions for summary judgment, ruling that the challenged portions of the statute were unconstitutional. Ficker v. Curran, 950 F. Supp. 123 (D. Md. 1996). The court referenced a letter of Maryland's Attorney General to the Governor prior to the passage of the law, which concluded that: "No evidence in the files reflects that citizens generally find it offensive that attorneys offer information and services to traffic and criminal defendants who, in fact, desperately need them.

  2. Shaffer v. ACS Government Services, Inc.

    454 F. Supp. 2d 330 (D. Md. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that the causal element satisfied where plaintiff was fired while serving grand jury duty

    " Fortunately for them, and for American jurisprudence, the "ultimate goal of [this Court is] promoting the fair administration of justice. . . ." Ficker v. Curran, 950 F. Supp. 123, 124 (D. Md. 1996) (emphasis added). Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [105], Plaintiff's Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony [101], and Plaintiff's Motion in limine to Sanction Defendant [102].