Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
In Gross v. Pfizer the court directly applied the Supreme Court's PLIVA v. Mensing preemption holding to dismiss the remaining claims without any suggestion of revisiting or limiting it. Gross v. Pfizer, Inc. ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's 2011 final decision approving a trustee's compensation and closing a Chapter 7 case that originated from an involuntary petition filed to collect on credit card judgments against pro se debtor Ralph T. Byrd. The district court considered Byrd's challenges to the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and the approval of over $351,000 in administrative expenses paid to allegedly conflicted professionals. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings, holding that Byrd's arguments lacked merit because the record showed no disqualifying conflicts of interest under the relevant Bankruptcy Code provisions and that the professionals' continued involvement provided substantial benefit to the estate amid complex, protracted litigation. The opinion recounts the decade-long history of motions, sanctions, and appeals stemming from the initial debt collection but focuses on the absence of error in the trustee appointments and fee approvals.
The case involved a plaintiff who suffered injuries from ingesting generic metoclopramide manufactured by PLIVA and brought state-law tort claims, including failure to warn, against both brand-name and generic drug manufacturers. The court previously dismissed claims against the brand-name defendants under Maryland law limiting liability to the actual manufacturer of the drug ingested. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in PLIVA v. Mensing that federal FDA regulations preempt state failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers because they cannot independently change labels, the court granted PLIVA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the remaining claims as preempted. The court later denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, rejecting arguments that any label-update theory survived Mensing.
The case concerned a dispute between Bank of America (as successor to Merrill Lynch) and the Jill P. Mitchell Living Trust, along with Jill and Bryan Mitchell, over a 2006 loan agreement secured by securities accounts. The bank sued for breach of contract and guarantee after the trust allegedly defaulted, while the trust and Ms. Mitchell counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, primarily challenging a breakage fee imposed for early repayment of a fixed-rate advance and alleging inadequate disclosure of loan terms. The court granted the bank's motion to strike the defendants' jury trial demand, granted in part and denied in part the bank's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims, and granted in part and denied in part the counter-plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. These rulings rested on the agreement's explicit jury waiver provision, interpretation of the breakage fee clause as potentially enforceable despite ambiguities in the fee schedule, and findings that certain counterclaim allegations lacked sufficient evidentiary support while others raised triable issues of fact.
This case involved investors in a real estate limited liability company called Sunchase who sought to recover funds they invested in a property acquisition after the company failed to raise the required minimum offering amount and defaulted on payments. The plaintiffs claimed an interest in a specific parcel known as Parcel K, which was titled to defendant Parcel K-Tudor Hall Farm, LLC (PK-THF). The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, imposing a constructive trust lien of $50,640 on Parcel K. The reasoning was that the plaintiffs had conferred a benefit on PK-THF through their investments, making it unjust for PK-THF to retain that portion of the benefit despite not participating in any alleged securities violations.
The case involved plaintiff Talin Tasciyan suing Medical Numerics, Textron Systems, and Overwatch Geospatial Systems for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after her 2009 termination, alleging she faced bias as the only female employee and was fired after raising concerns in a self-evaluation. The court granted summary judgment to Medical Numerics on the ground that it had fewer than 15 employees and was not an employer under Title VII, but denied summary judgment on whether the defendants qualified as integrated employers. It dismissed the sex discrimination claim without prejudice for insufficient pleading while allowing the retaliation claim to proceed, based on allegations of protected activity followed by adverse action.
This case involved a Maryland corporation that sued a Nebraska non-profit association and two of its officers after being indefinitely suspended and removed from membership for allegedly violating the group's code of ethics by sharing member information with a non-member. The plaintiff asserted claims including breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, all stemming from its 2006 membership agreement and use of the association's online equipment-trading platform. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked both specific and general personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The core reasoning was that the association had no offices, employees, or direct business in Maryland, its website was passive with respect to the organization itself, and the individual defendants had no contacts with the state sufficient to satisfy Maryland's long-arm statute or constitutional due process.