upon bar in Maryland

2013This conduct was not found by the hearing court to be a violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), but that conclusion was overruled by this Court upon bar counsel’s exception. 380 Md. at 156 , 844 A.2d at 383 .

2013This conduct was not found by the hearing court to be a violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), but that conclusion was overruled by this Court upon bar counsel’s exception. 380 Md. at 156 , 844 A.2d at 383 .

2013In Floyd , the Rule 8.4(c) violation consisted of Floyd’s failure to disclose, among other things, that the letter to the FTC, from her current employer and primary reference, which indicated a willingness to pay $55,000 per year to retain her services and which resulted in the FTC raising her starting salary from $42,724 per year to $51,269 per year, was from her husband. 400 Md. at 251-252 , 929 A.2d at 70 .

2013In Floyd , the Rule 8.4(c) violation consisted of Floyd’s failure to disclose, among other things, that the letter to the FTC, from her current employer and primary reference, which indicated a willingness to pay $55,000 per year to retain her services and which resulted in the FTC raising her starting salary from $42,724 per year to $51,269 per year, was from her husband. 400 Md. at 251-252 , 929 A.2d at 70 .

1993In the Turnpike Co. case, the City’s entire reliance in this Court was upon the rule, set forth in several out-of-state cases, that “a municipal corporation [can] be sued in its own Courts only, even in the case of a local action.” 104 Md. at 351 , 65 A. 35 .

1993In the Turnpike Co. case, the City’s entire reliance in this Court was upon the rule, set forth in several out-of-state cases, that “a municipal corporation [can] be sued in its own Courts only, even in the case of a local action.” 104 Md. at 351 , 65 A. 35 .

1915In Beall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550 , it was said (quoting from syllabus) : “The decision of a Court upon a claim in a former action is as effectual a bar to a recovery in another suit, upon the same cause of action, as that of a jury; and the fact that the Court’s decision was wrong does not give the injured party the right to bring another suit upon the same claim, for. he might have appealed and had the error coriected.” See also Thomas v. Malster, 14 Md. 382 ; State, use Bruner, v. Ramsburg, 43 Md. 325 .

1915In Beall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550 , it was said (quoting from syllabus) : “The decision of a Court upon a claim in a former action is as effectual a bar to a recovery in another suit, upon the same cause of action, as that of a jury; and the fact that the Court’s decision was wrong does not give the injured party the right to bring another suit upon the same claim, for. he might have appealed and had the error coriected.” See also Thomas v. Malster, 14 Md. 382 ; State, use Bruner, v. Ramsburg, 43 Md. 325 .

1915In Beall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550 , it was said (quoting from syllabus) : “The decision of a Court upon a claim in a former action is as effectual a bar to a recovery in another suit, upon the same cause of action, as that of a jury; and the fact that the Court’s decision was wrong does not give the injured party the right to bring another suit upon the same claim, for. he might have appealed and had the error coriected.” See also Thomas v. Malster, 14 Md. 382 ; State, use Bruner, v. Ramsburg, 43 Md. 325 .

1908The caveator appealed from that order to this Court and we reversed the order and remanded the case in 106 Md. 147 , holding in our opinion that the issues raised by the, caveat related to the factum of the will and concerned its probate and not its construction and were therefore cognizable by the Orphans’ Court, which under our testamentary system has exclusive jurisdiction in granting or refusing the probate of wills.