Semmes offers Law Updates for information-purposes only. Semmes assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or timeliness of any information provided herein. The information may not apply to your unique situation, and is not intended to be used as a basis for any particular course of action or as a substitute for legal advice.
Trial Court Erred by Excluding Defense Expert Testimony on Cigarette Smoking As Contributing to Plaintiff’s Lung Cancer [ Wallace & Gale Asbestos Trust v. Carter, No. 2018 (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, May 2, 2013) ]
Trial court errs in excluding defense expert’s testimony that cigarette smoking contributed 75% to his lung cancer while occupational exposure to asbestos contributed 25% to his lung cancer, and from preventing defendant from adding question regarding same from jury verdict sheet.
Plaintiffs Were Unable To Prove Race And Age Discrimination Against The Mayor & City Council of Baltimore [ Thomas, et al. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, et al., Civil No., JKB-11-2479 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Plaintiffs established their prima facie case of race and age discrimination, but the employer produced evidence of a legitimate reason for its employment decisions. The burden shifted back to Plaintiffs to prove that the City’s reason was pretextual and that its decisions were premised upon unlawful discrimination. The court found nothing to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.
Complaint Dismissed For Failing To Serve Process Within 120 Days Of Filing Of Action [ Rusnakova v. World Kitchen, LLC., Civil No., RDB-12-03650 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Plaintiff attempted to extend the limitations period on her tort claim by filing her action and then failing to serve Defendant for a nearly two-year period. The Court could not allow this type of delay, and dismissed her Complaint.
Fourth Circuit Vacates Maryland District Court Judgment for Defendants Where Injury Did not Present Complicated Medical Question Requiring Expert Testimony to Prove Causation [ Arthur Galloway v. Horne Concrete Construction, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 11-1879 & 11-1898 (4th Cir. May 1, 2013) ]
Relying upon Wilhelm v. State Traffic Safety Comm’n, 185 A.2d 715, 719 (Md. 1962), the Fourth Circuit vacated the Maryland district court’s for Defendants in personal injury case where there was no complicated medical question for which expert testimony was necessary to prove causation.
Fourth Circuit Reverses and Remands Maryland District Court Grant of Summary Judgment for Defendant, Marriott International, on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens [ Mary DiFederico v. Marriott International, Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 12-1635 (4th Cir. May 1, 2013) ]
Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded wrongful death and survivorship case where a proper forum non conveniens inquiry, applying the heightened deference owed to a citizen-plaintiff seeking suit in her home forum, did not establish “such oppressiveness and vexation to Defendant as to be out of all proportion to Plaintiff’s convenience.”
Good Samaritan Act Does Not Apply to Private Commercial Ambulance Company, But Under Certain Circumstances, Same Company Might Be Entitled to Immunity Under the Fire and Rescue Act [ Transcare Maryland Inc. v. Murray, No. 24 (Maryland Court Appeals, April 22, 2013) ]
Court of Appeals affirms reversal of grant of Summary Judgment in favor of private commercial ambulance company in medical malpractice case where Good Samaritan Act is not applicable, and there was a lack of evidence in this particular case that the Fire and Rescue Act applied.
Baltimore City Verdict in Lead Trial Vacated, and Case Remanded for New Trial [ Housing Authority of Baltimore City v. Marie Carter, Case No.: 2048 (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, May 1, 2013) ]
In Housing Authority of Baltimore City v. Carter, the Court of Special Appeals held that it was abuse of the trial court’s discretion to allow a medical doctor to opine as to the source of lead without any direct evidence that lead was in the property.
Supreme Court Holds That Fair Labor Standards Act Case Is Not Justiciable Once Lone Plaintiff’s Claim Becomes Moot [ Genesis Healthcare Corp., et al. v. Laura Symczyk, Case No.: 11-1059 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 2013) ]
In Genesis Healthcare Corp., et al. v. Laura Symczyk, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s opinion regarding “pick-offs” in regard to a collective action filed pursuant to the FLSA.
Use Of The Words “Putt-Putt” In Business Name Leads To Trademark Infringement Suit [ Putt-Putt, LLC v. 416 Constant Friendship, LLC, et al., Civil No., 8:12-cv-03018-AW (D. Md. 2013) ]
Plaintiff, Putt-Putt, LLC, sued 416 Constant Friendship, LLC for seeking to register the mark “PUTT-PUTT FUN CENTER.” Plaintiff claimed that it owned a valid and protectable mark, and that Defendant’s use of that mark created a likelihood of confusion. The court agreed.
Fourth Circuit Applies Restatement (Second) of Torts to Affirm Maryland District Court Finding that Hospital and Physical Therapy Facility were Joint Tortfeasors [ Mary LaClair v. Suburban Hospital, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 12-1195 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2013) ]
Applying provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to Maryland law, the Fourth Circuit determined that the actions of hospital staff, which exacerbated a patient’s injuries at a physical therapy facility, were reasonably foreseeable and not “extraordinarily negligent” such that the hospital and the physical therapy facility should not be considered joint tortfeasors.
Fourth Circuit Rejects “Mutual Mistake” Defense Where Relief Sought by Defendant was Better Bargain than Initially Negotiated and Contract Embodied Parties’ Original Intent [ Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 12-1649 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013) ]
Applying North Carolina contract law, the Fourth Circuit determined that the defense of “mutual mistake” was not warranted where an Asset Purchase Agreement embodied the parties’ actual, original, fully-negotiated intent, and where mutual mistake was a tactic to obtain a better bargain than the one the parties initially negotiated.
Fourth Circuit Expands Remedies Available to ERISA Plaintiffs [ McCravy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. [McCravy II], Nos. 10-1074 and 10-1131 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, July 5, 2012) ]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its May 15, 2011, decision in McCravy v. Metro. Life Insurance Co., on the basis of CIGNA Corp. v. AMARA, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), and broadens equitable remedies available to ERISA claimants in breach of fiduciary duty cases.
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under Section 8 of Housing Act Against Individual Housing Authority Employees [ Gary Jones v. Paul Graziano, et al., Case No.: JKB-12-3314 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, April 10, 2013) ]
In Jones v. Graziano, et al., Judge Bredar dismissed Plaintiff’s suit finding that he failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Section 8 of the housing Act, even accepting his factual allegations as true.
Compliance With Mandatory Mediation Provision In Real Estate Contract Is Found Futile [ Renick v. Sperau, et al., Civil No., CCB-12-1627 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Although sellers of a home violated the mandatory mediation provision of the sale contract, after the unsuccessful participation of the parties in a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, a stay in the district court proceedings pending further mediation became futile.
Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation Deemed Properly Dismissed by Fourth Circuit [ David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc., Case No.: 12-2116 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, April 4, 2013) ]
In Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc., the Fourth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s dismissal, which was effectively a grant of summary judgment on claims of discrimination and retaliation.
Home Owner’s Claim of Fraud in the Inducement of a Home Financing Contract Not Preempted by Federal Home Owners’ Loan Act [ Charlotte McCauley v. Home Loan Investment Bank, Case No.: 12-1181 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, March 25, 2013) ]
In McCauley v. Home Loan Investment Bank, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Federal statute did not entirely preempt Plaintiff’s claims against mortgage lender, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Dismissal of Homeowners’ Complaint Based on Mortgage Servicer’s Denial of “HAMP“ Mortgage Modification Request Is Affirmed [ Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-1973 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, April 19, 2013) ]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms District Court’s dismissal of Complaint arising from bank’s mortgage modification denial and in state common law related to alleged violations of the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq.
Grant of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense Overturned in Pool Drowning Case [ Paul v. Blackburn Limited Partnership d/b/a Country Place Apartments, et al., No. 2727 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, March 25, 2013) ]
Court of Special Appeals reverses trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants where their pool did not comply with COMAR and Montgomery County Code regulations; regulatory violations were evidence of negligence.
Baltimore City Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Admitting Testimony of Plaintiff’s Childood Lead Expert [ City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, No. 2109 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, March 22, 2013) ]
Plaintiff’s lead poisoning expert was unqualified and lacked factual basis to testify about, inter alia, source of exposure. But see, Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City (issued on same day by Maryland Court of Appeals, holding that source of lead exposure may be proven by circumstantial evidence, without the need for expert).
Plaintiffs’ Tortious Causes of Action Were Not Preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act [ Smith v. Giant Food, LLC, et al., Civil No., JKB-12-3097 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Defendants removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on the asserted basis of federal preemption under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court held that Plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by § 301. Consequently, the case was remanded.
Maryland District Court Allows Private Government Contractor “Acting Under” Government’s Control to Invoke Federal Officer Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 [ James Joyner v. AC & R Insulation Co., et al., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. CCB-12-2294 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2013) ]
In asbestos litigation, Maryland district court found that federal officer removal statute applied to private government contractor that was “acting under” the supervision of the United States Navy and the Coast Guard.
Maryland District Court Finds Express Warranty and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Pacemaker Case Preempted Under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) and Riegel v. Medtronic [ Byron Smith v. St. Jude Medical Cardiac Rhythm Management et al., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. CCB-12-1746 (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2013) ]
In case involving allegedly defective pacemaker causing the death of a three-year old, Maryland district court found that negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty claims were preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) and Riegel v. Medtronic where “parallel” violations were alleged but not sufficiently identified in the complaint.
Trial Court’s Reduction of Jury Award to Nominal Damages Affirmed by Fourth Circuit [ Katrina Okoli v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., Case No.: 12-2174 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, March 14, 2013) ]
In Okoli v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s partial grant of a motion for judgment that resulted in reducing jury award to nominal damage.
Notice to the State Treasurer and Filing an Internal Affairs Complaint is Insufficient to Satisfy the LGTCA Against the Baltimore City Police Department [ Harrell v. Bealefeld, et al., Civil No., CCB-11-3046 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Plaintiffs sued the Baltimore City Police Commissioner and two officers for, inter alia, state law and RICO claims. The court held that Plaintiffs did not comply with the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act because sending notice to the State Treasurer and filing an internal affairs complaint was insufficient, and because they did not establish good cause.
Landlord Breaches Implied-In-Fact Contract in Failing to Pay Broker’s Commission in Connection with Long-Term Lease Negotiation [ Steuart Investment Co. v. The Meyer Group, Ltd., Nos. 11-CV-20 & 11-CV-346 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, March 7, 2013) ]
Commercial landlord breached implied-in-fact contract with real estate broker when it failed to pay broker 3% commission on long-term lease where: 1) landlord had reason to know that broker’s services were for landlord’s benefit and not some other person; 2) landlord was on notice that broker’s services were not gratuitous; and, 3) the broker’s services were beneficial to the landlord.
Maryland District Court Rejects Sovereign Immunity Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) Where Intentional Tort Claim Against Government was Rooted in Negligence [ Jana Cantrel v. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, KB-12-2607 (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2013) ]
Where a plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the government was based upon negligence—not misrepresentation or slander—that claim was not barred by sovereign immunity contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Investors Not Deemed to be Customers Cannot Pursue Arbitration Claims Under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rules [ Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Peter Cary, et al., Case No.: 12-1053 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, March 8, 2013) ]
In Raymond James v. Cary, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision that relationship between investors and Financial Services Company was too attenuated for those investors to be considered customers.
Advanced Courteous Copies of Filings Is Not Always a Good Idea [ Mostofi v. Capital One, N.A., Civil No., RWT-12-cv-2398 (D. Md. 2013) ]
Defense counsel provided notice of filing of removal papers to Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the filing of the notice in State court. This allowed Plaintiffs time to file an amended complaint in State court, prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s removal papers. Therefore, the operative pleading was the amended complaint, which did not contains grounds for removal.
Court of Appeals Slashes Jury Verdicts in Exxon Gas Leak Cases [ Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, No. 15 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 26, 2013) ]
Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud as they did not detrimentally rely on fraudulent statements Exxon allegedly made to the government in connection with gas leak. While Maryland recognizes tort damages for emotional distress for fear of developing latent disease, and for costs of medical monitoring, the Plaintiffs failed to prove the elements of these claims.
Maryland District Court Applies Supreme Court Abstention Standards in Fraudulent Death Case and Denies Claimant’s Motion to Dismiss Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 [ AMEX Assurance Company v. Gary Vincent Giordano, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, AW-12-cv-2640 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013) ]
Maryland district court found that the Supreme Court’s abstention standards did not support abstention where two cases did not present “substantially the same” issues competing in state and federal proceedings. Thus, the district court denied the beneficiary’s motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and also found that the insurer had sufficiently alleged plausible claims for relief.
Maryland District Court Declines to Issue Declaratory Judgment Despite Finding “Actual Controversy” Over Insurance Policy Coverage [ Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Carroll Gross, Jr. et al., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, CCB-11-3598 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2013) ]
Despite finding that insurer presented “Actual Controversy” in insurance coverage dispute, the Maryland district court declined to issue declaratory relief because the threat of future litigation between the parties was improbable. Thus, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims of all parties.
Defamation Action Brought By Former Employee of Veterans Affairs Dismissed Against Individual Defendants and United States Government [ Donald Shake v. Teresa Gividen, et al., Case No.: RDB-12-01496 (United States District Court for the District of Maryland, February 20, 2013) ]
In Shake v. Gividen, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, held that the United States government was the only proper Defendant, and that Plaintiff’s defamation claim must properly be dismissed.
Debtor Fails to Allege Injury from Bank’s Rejection of Short Sale Offers [ Padley v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Case No.: 12-890 (D. Md. February 14, 2013) ]
Mortgage debtor failed to allege any injury when the bank did not consider multiple short sale offers and eventually foreclosed on the property for less than the short sale offers.
Employer’s Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim Was Denied [ Jacobs v. HP Enterprise Servces, LLC, No., JKB-12-3551 (D. Md., February 20, 2013) ]
Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract, violation of the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law, and fraud claim against his employer. Court held that he adequately plead his claim for fraud under FED. R. CIV. P 9(b) and provided specific factual allegations that could allow a plausible conclusion that HP defrauded Jacobs. Thus, his employer's motion to dismiss the fraud claim was denied.
Transfer from Baltimore City to Baltimore County on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds Is Upheld on Appeal in a Medical Malpractice Case [ Smith v. Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, Inc., No. 1191 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, January 23, 2013) ]
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring medical malpractice personal injury case from Baltimore City to Baltimore County on forum non conveniens grounds where no Plaintiff lived in Baltimore City; no Defendant lived or worked in Baltimore City; and where the allegedly tortious conduct arose in Baltimore County.
Fourth Circuit Applies North Carolina Cause Test and Proximate Cause Theory to Define “Occurrence” by Cause of Injury and Not Effect [ Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company v. Duke University Health System, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 11-2057 (4th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013) ]
In case involving multiple injuries from the mistaken washing of hospital instruments with hydraulic fluid, the Fourth Circuit applied the North Carolina “cause test” and proximate cause theory to hold that each injury was not a separate occurrence for purposes of insurance coverage, but all injuries arose from one act of negligence.
A Defendant Receiving a Notice of Default at its Last Known Address was Sufficient [ Smith-Myers Corp. d/b/a Smith-Myers Mortgage Group v. Sherill, et al., No.: 2034 (Md. App. Jan. 24, 2013) ]
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed a trial court ruling where the Defendant had actual notice of an order of default and the hearing on damages, but did not move to vacate that order or even attend the hearing. The Plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment and damages because the notice was mailed to Defendant’s “last known address.”
Jury Verdict Upheld in Product Liability Suit by Major League Baseball Umpire [ Wilson Sporting Good Company v. Edwin Hickox, et ux., Case No.: 11-CV-0445 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, January 31, 2013) ]
In Wilson Sporting Goods v. Hickox,the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s permitting Plaintiff’s expert to testify, and failing to give assumption of the risk instruction.
Maryland District Court Finds Possible Violation of Consumer Protection Law and Negligent Misrepresentation against Loan Servicer in Home Foreclosure Case [ Marquis Neal v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. JKB-11-3707 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2013) ]
The Maryland district court held that loan servicer of home mortgage could be liable for negligent misrepresentation and a violation of the MCPA because home mortgage customers detrimentally relied on the loan servicer’s instructions to not pay their monthly mortgage until a modified mortgage agreement was provided.
Office is not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity After using a Taser Ten (10) Times [ Meyers v. Baltimore County, Maryland, Case No.: 11-2192 (4th Cir. February 1, 2013) ]
Where an officer knowingly deprives an individual of their Constitutional rights, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.
In Mesothelioma Case, Virginia High Court Rejects Maryland’s “Substantial Contributing Factor” Causation Standard and Instead Adopts “Sufficient to Have Caused the Harm” Standard from the Restatement (Third) of Torts [ Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, Record No. 120283 (Supreme Court of Virginia, January 10, 2013) ]
Jury verdict appeals, for wrongful death from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos dust from brakes installed in certain motor vehicles, held that in concurring causation cases, the "sufficient to have caused" standard in prior case law and in Section 27 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts (and comments thereto) is the proper way to define the cause-in-fact element of proximate cause.
Another Dismissal for Failing to Follow the Iqbal-Twombly Pleading Standard [ National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. v. Annapolis Plaza, LLC., No.: JKB-12-1866 (D. Md. Jan 18, 2013) ]
Homeowners sought a mortgage modification, claiming that the Trial Period Plan violated the terms of the Home Affordable Modification Program. They wanted their mortgage reduced substantially. They sued their lender and their case was dismissed.
Circuit Court Abused Discretion in Entering Default Based on Action of Defendant’s Insurance Carrier [ Station Maintenance Solutions, Inc. v. Two Farms, Inc., Case No.: 2039 (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, January 24, 2013) ]
In Station Maintenance Solutions v. Two Farms, the Court of Special Appeals held that sanctions should not be imposed against party unless it is involved or complicit in insurance company’s violation of Court Order.
Homeowners’ Home Affordable Modification Program Case Dismissed [ Goss v. Bank of America, N.A., No.: CCB-12-2680 (D.Md. Jan. 8, 2013) ]
Homeowners sought a mortgage modification, claiming that the Trial Period Plan violated the terms of the Home Affordable Modification Program. The homeowners believed that their mortgage should have been reduced by more than what was offered to them. They sued under Maryland's consumer Protection Act, but the Federal court held that they had no cause of action against their lender.
Virginia High Court Decides Against “Two-Disease Rule” for Asbestos Exposure [ Kiser v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., Record No. 120698 (Supreme Court of Virginia, January 10, 2013) ]
In response to a question of law, the Supreme Court of Virginia holds that the enactment of Code § 8.01-249(4), did not abrogate the common law indivisible cause of action principle, and that a cause of action for personal injury based on exposure to asbestos accrues upon the first communication of a diagnosis of an asbestos-related injury or disease by a physician.
Prescription Drugs are not “Consumer Goods” Within the Meaning of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act [ Pease v. Abbott Lab., Inc., Case No.: JKB-12-1844 (D. Md. January 16, 2013) ]
Prescription drugs are not consumer products within the meaning of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; and therefore, an action cannot lie for violation of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertising with respect to a prescription drug.
Heightened Pleading Standards for Affirmative Defenses [ Hammer v. Peninsula Poultry Equip. Co., Inc., Case No.: RDB-12-1139 (D. Md. January 10, 2013) ]
Defendants are subject to the same heightened pleadings standards of Iqbal and Twombly as Complaints.
Slip and Fall Plaintiff Was Not A Trespasser As A Matter of Law [ Boyrie v. E & G Property Services, et al., No. 11-CV-1631 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, January 3, 2013) ]
Record did not establish that slip and fall Plaintiff was a trespasser at Defendants’apartment complex as a matter of law, so case was reversed and remanded.
Failing to Follow the Strict Rules for Filing a Verified Claim to Forfeited Money Results in Forfeiture [ U.S. v. $14,250 U.S. Currency, No. CCB-12-1252 (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2012) ]
A criminal made claim to money seized by the government. Through a technicality his answer took the form of a verified claim. He did not, however, personally sign the answer, which is required under the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Therefore, his answer was not technically a verified claim to the money.
United States District Court Finds Employer Liable for Failing to Provide Sixty-Day Notice before Restaurant Closure [ Gray v. Walt Disney Co., No. 10-3000 (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2013) ]
In Gray v. Walt Disney Co., the United States District Court for the District of Maryland found defendant restaurant owners liable for failing to notify employees of employment loss sixty days prior to closure.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals finds that Handgun Buyers Lacked Standing to Challenge Federal and Virginia Laws Restricting Interstate Handgun Transfers [ Lane v. Holder, No. 11-1847 (4th Cir. Dec. 31, 2012) ]
In Lane v. Holder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that plaintiff handgun buyers lacked standing to challenge laws restricting interstate transfers of handguns.