Case law

Harris v. Hipsley

122 Md. 418 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1914

It is therefore of the utmost importance when such testimony is offered that the time be as clearly shown as is possible. … State, 64 Md. 384 , it is said: 'While an expert may give his opinion upon facts assumed to have been established, it wo-uld be against every rule and principle of evidence to allow him to state his opinion upon the conclusions

Government Employees Insurance v. Insurance Commissioner

273 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1975

It’s a flag that normally someone with one accident, and one violation would not be acceptable but depending on the circumstances he could be qualified to be acceptable.” … We have clearly indicated that they can originate neither judicially nor administratively.

State v. Harrell

348 Md. 69 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 1997

In the instant case, it is clear that Harrell’s battery of Hammons qualifies as a startling event. … The statement clearly does not pertain to or concern, and has no association with, the battery.

Springer v. Erie Insurance Exchange

439 Md. 142 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2014

EDP Floors, Inc., 311 Md. 217, 230, 533 A.2d 682, 688 (1987), the court explained that, pursuant to the policy’s definition of “business,” it was established “very clearly” that the J.G. … Relying on Brohawn, our intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court and held that “while coverage cannot be established clearly from the facts alleged” in the underlying tort suit, it was clear that St.

Office of the Public Defender v. State

413 Md. 411 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 2010

It accordingly established the OPD and designated the Public Defender as its “head.” § 3. … Nor is the absence of appellate decisions holding the OPD, who has declined representation, immune to appointment by a circuit court persuasive. The converse is equally true.

State v. Williamson

282 Md. 100 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1978

Since in this case there was sufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. … But it is clearly held that one acquitted as principal may be indicted as an accessary after the fact; since that is always an offence of a different species of guilt, principally tending to evade the public justice, and

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Robertson

400 Md. 618 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 2007

so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder. … Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment.

Gray v. Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children

192 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1949

Today methods of treatment and immunization have removed diphtheria as a serious menace. Scarlet fever, under modern methods of treatment, is regarded as a mild disease. … It proposed to establish several playgrounds out of the fund and to reserve an amount necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of said park.

Thompson v. Clemens

60 L.R.A. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1903

, when the landlord was under contract to make the repairs, but many of the decisions we there referred to, and others that might be cited, in announciug the general rule as to the landlord’s liability to the tenant, do qualify … If the use of that part of the porch was dangerous, the plaintiff knew it, and if she had been injured in the use of that would clearly have been guilty of contributory negligence.

Marshall v. State

415 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2010

“This Court has maintained that the right to remain silent ‘has always been liberally construed in order to give fullest effect to this immunity.’ ” Crosby v. … The prosecuting attor *264 ney clearly was using the defendant’s silence as support for the State’s case.

Abell v. Secretary of State

251 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1968

The words “said first day of June” refer to the previously mentioned “first day of June next after the session at which it is passed” and this language definitely establishes when the referendum petition must be filed to … As was clearly pointed out by the Attorney General of Maryland in his opinion dated June 19, 1968, Section 2 of Article XVI of the Maryland Constitution requires that a petition for a referendum must be filed before the first

Penna. R.R. Co. v. Public Ser. Com.

126 Md. 59 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1915

When couched in so general terms the ground for such a prayer is not clearly evident. … It was further held that despite this range of permissible action, the State has no arbitrary power over rates; that the devotion of the property of the carrier to public use is qualified by the condition of the carrier's

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brisbon

422 Md. 625 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2011

Even though conducting an independent review of the record, we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. … for a benefit such as Temporaiy Protected Status, when they clearly do not qualify and should not apply; 3) filing incompetent Motions to Reopen cases before the Immigration Court when clients only have one chance under

Gill v. State

265 Md. 350 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1972

Since it is uncontradicted that the suspect was in fact in the sole presence of this police interrogator, that specific person must rebut the allegations of coercion as no one else is qualified to do so. Streams v. … The State, in its brief, claims that: “Such action by the Court of Special Appeals is clearly permitted and in fact mandated by Maryland Rule 1071”.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein

372 Md. 224 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2002

The Respondent, pursuant to a grant of immunity, testified before the Grand Jury for the State of Maryland in Montgomery County on September 25,1997. 40. … The application clearly describes the details of the finding of Mr.

Sangston v. Hack

52 Md. 173 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 1879

the fact satisfactorily, that some of the Articles have been practically waived, or abrogated, or qualified, while others are necessarily implied as being in full force and operation. … The authorities which these authors cite as establishing the doctrine clearly sustain it, though the instances in which the question has been directly presented for adjudication are comparatively few.

Sheets v. Brethren Mutual Insurance

342 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 26, 1996

Clearly, negligent misrepresentation is a difficult concept, whose very name breeds confusion. … Negligent misrepresentation clearly has elements sounding both in intentional tort and in negligence. In Ellerin v.

Choi v. State

316 Md. 529 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 1989

Clearly, in enacting this statute, the General Assembly intended to proscribe false reports of crimes and other statements which instigate totally unnecessary police investigations. … It should be noted that if the prosecuting attorney had been empowered by statute to have granted Nancy Choi immunity coextensive with the privilege, and if he had granted the immunity, she could have been compelled to testify

Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio

156 Md. 229 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1929

The restraint upon alienation included in the deed to Einbrod and wife seems clearly enough to' be one intended merely to give the developer of a suburban area of land power to control the character of the development for … Ash was taken as having established the validity of such a clause.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Christopher

383 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 16, 2004

We conduct an independent review of the record, accepting the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … Tellefsen *650 or other similarly qualified health care professional certifying that Nathan H.