Salisbury, Maryland company, Perdue Farms, Inc., has eliminated all antibiotics from its chicken supply, making it the first major poultry supplier to do so.
Peggy White (Axiom Engineering), Karen Pecoraro (Cardno ATC), Meg Moon (Lakeside Title Co.) and Teri Spradlin, Esq., LEED AP, compete in the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association Golf Tournament on June 17, 2013, at Blue Mash.
On April 9, 2013, Teri Spradlin was present when Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 into law. The Act creates a mechanism to incentivize the development of a 200 megawatt offshore wind facility 10 nautical miles east of Ocean City, and establishes a regulatory framework that will allow additional projects to interconnect in Maryland.
ELS provides senior-level executives with an issues-oriented overview of the county’s challenges, people, processes, and resources. One of the program’s primary benefits is to meet and establish or enhance relationships between top business, government, and community leaders. ELS provides an overview and working knowledge of the county and its resources, access to key decision makers, interaction with a network of peers, and an opportunity to become involved in community affairs.
Weems v. County Commissioners of Calvert County, 397 Md. 606 (2007)
For details, see the opinion: Weems v. County Commissioners of Calvert County (PDF).
Teri Spradlin represented Thomas I. Weems, Jr. and other similarly situated plaintiff/appellant landowners in an appeal from the decision rendered by the Circuit Court for Calvert County in favor of Calvert County. Plaintiff/Appellants filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court against the County Commissioners, seeking a declaration as to the westerly terminus of a public easement; a declaration as to the ownership of an area known as Leitch’s Wharf; and a declaration that §15-201 of the Calvert County Code—as it pertains to Leitch’s Wharf—is unconstitutional because it constitutes a taking of Appellants’ property without just compensation.
The case, later described by the Court of Appeals as a “litigation odyssey,” continued for over five years as the trial court ruled in favor of the County and Teri Spradlin represented the landowners in the appellate courts of Maryland. In the first appeal, the Court of Special Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for additional facts without affirming or reversing the lower court’s prior decision. On remand, the circuit court again held in favor of the County and Ms. Spradlin’s clients again appealed from the unfavorable decision. The Court of Appeals, on its own motion, issued a writ of certiorari.
A 1958 Deed conveyed approximately 110 acres on the Patuxent River known as “Leitch’s Wharf and known as part of God’s Graces or Leitch’s Wharf Farm” to plaintiff/appellants. Section 15-201 of the Calvert County Code provided in relevant part: “(a) The public shall have an easement or right-of-way over any roads or ways in Calvert County leading to. . .Leitch’s Wharf; and (b) The purpose of this easement or right-of-way is solely for access to the wharves and landings and enjoyment of the wharves and landings by the public.”
The Court of Appeals held in favor of the landowners, stating “The property described as Leitch’s Wharf is clearly private property . . ., yet §15-201 gives to the public a right-of-way and use easement to appellants’ private property. That §15-201 encourages members of the public to use appellants’ property is clearly established. As a result of this statutorily mandated right-of-way, the Sheriff’s Department has declined . . . to force trespassers off of the property. The injury created by §15-201 is clearly shown by the evidence in the record of this case.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held in favor of Ms. Spradlin’s clients and ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to give the public the right to use the private property of a landowner without that landowner’s permission. As applied to Leitch’s Wharf, §15-201 of the Calvert County Code “is unconstitutional in that it improperly and seriously interferes with appellants’ rights to exclude others from their property without compensating them for the taking of that right.”
Alexander v. MAIF, et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted (Case No. 62, Sept. Term 2004)
MAIF settled for full policy limits after Ms. Alexander’s appellate brief was filed in the Court of Appeals.
Teri Spradlin represented Ms. Alexander on appeal from a denial of coverage in a carjacking case, in which her client was severely injured. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF) was Ms. Alexander’s uninsured motorist carrier.
MAIF denied coverage under the uninsured motorist (UM) provision in the policy and was dismissed as a defendant in the district court because the carjacker admitted liability for causing Ms. Alexander’s injuries. The district court found that the car was “insured” as to preclude coverage under the UM provision. The court stated that if Ms. Alexander had been injured by a car other than her own, her injuries would have been covered.
Ms. Spradlin represented Ms. Alexander on appeal in the circuit court, from the adverse ruling in the district court. The circuit court, however, affirmed the decision of the district court. The circuit court agreed with the district court that Ms. Alexander had not triggered the UM provision in her policy where she was insured and it was her car that injured her.
Ms. Spradlin filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which was granted. On appeal, she argued that the car became “uninsured” when commandeered by a carjacker. The Court of Appeals was asked to determine the meaning of “insured” and “uninsured” within the language of Ms. Alexander’s contract with MAIF, and the legislative intent of Maryland’s uninsured motorist law.
Ms. Spradlin fully briefed the case on behalf of Ms. Alexander. The day MAIF’s brief was due to be filed in the Court of Appeals, MAIF settled for full policy limits. MAIF’s UM policy exclusions are statutory. More than likely, by settling the case, MAIF avoided a reported opinion precluding it from denying coverage in carjacking cases.