Case law

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.

Porterfield v. Mascari II, Inc.

374 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 2003

They predict that an employee then could be immunized from an adverse employment decision merely by stating “I am calling a lawyer.” … This is not an assumption we accept because, as Respondent suggests, the necessary extension of such a conclusion is that “an employee could be immunized from an adverse employment action by simply announcing, T am calling

Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2022

,” see Leon Gordis, Epidemiology 26 (5th ed. 2014) (defining “herd immunity” as “the resistance of a group of people to an attack by a disease to which a large proportion of the members of the group are immune”), with no … Contamination qualifies as physical loss or damage only if it renders the subject property unusable or uninhabitable.”); Bel Air Auto, 534 F.

State v. Allewalt

308 Md. 89 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 1986

Spodak’s opinion to “establish” that a rape had occurred and indeed, to establish that fact “conclusively.” A slavish application of so rigid a requirement would eliminate most of the evidence at trials of all kinds. … The court then held: An examination of the literature clearly demonstrates that the so-called “rape trauma syndrome” is generally accepted to be a common reaction to sexual assault.

Gordy v. Dennis

176 Md. 106 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1939

The reasoning of the court, however, clearly indicated it would follow the dissent. Another case much relied on is State ex rel. Wickham v. Nygaard, 1915, 159 Wis. 396 , 150 N.W. 513 . … be prodently accepted by those who are qualified by talent, knowledge, integrity, and capacity, but are not possessed of such a private fortune as to make an assured salary an object of personal concern.

County Comm'rs of Charles Co. v. Stevens

299 Md. 203 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1984

As such, Smith is clearly distinguishable. … Inevitably, tension may develop between the local control envisioned by federalism and the establishment of a national economy. 13 But, as the Supreme Court has made clear, the power of local governments to serve their citizens

United Bank v. Buckingham

472 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2021

preceding words or phrase—particularly in the absence of a comma before the qualifying phrase.” … Here, the qualifying phrase—“of tangible or intangible property”—is not set off by commas, and therefore it only modifies the immediately preceding term “pledge.”

Liberty Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

330 Md. 433 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1993

Subsection (c) provides quite clearly, that “to be allowable, interest expense must be incurred on indebtedness established with lenders or lending organizations not related through control, ownership, or personal relationship … See also Northwest Hosp., 687 F.2d at 993 (“commercial interest expense [through a commercial lender] clearly qualifies as a reimbursable Medicare cost”); South Boston, 409 F.Supp. at 1385 (“A financing arrangement through

Gov't Employees Ins. v. Ins. Comm'r

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.

Peddicord v. Franklin

270 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1973

The intention to convey to that line is clearly expressed in their respective deeds. … Stipulated Exhibit 1 was not accompanied by any testimony of a qualified surveyor and thus there was no testimony to support the point locations and bearings used in the survey.

ASSOC. REALTY COMPANY v. Cadillac Jack Enterprises, Inc.

250 Md. 371 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1968

Edwards’ testimony falls short of establishing it. Even Adler’s testimony contains inconsistencies which impair its credibility. … We think Judge Carter’s comment just about hit the nail on the head and it follows, of course, that we cannot say he was clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 (a). II.

Solvuca v. Ryan & Reilly Co.

131 Md. 265 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1917

“The immunity of the employer from responsibility to an employee for the negligence of a fellow employee is of comparatively recent origin, it being the product of the judicial conception that the probability of a fellow … S. 33, 41 . *278 “It is not our purpose to qualify or weaken either of these declarations in the least.

State v. Williams

101 Md. 529 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1905

Alexander in his note on p. 13 of Alexander’s British Statutes, in which he says: “It was an established rule of the common law that where the King’s right and that of a private subject met at one and the same time, the King … The entry of these two judgments on the same day and while the property remained the property of the common debtor, clearly illustrates what is meant by the meeting of two conflicting rights at the same time.

Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Commission

306 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1986

Carroll had not established her right to a jury trial in this case. … Carroll that a claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $500 establishes the claimant’s right to a jury trial unless it clearly appears that the claim is actually for less than that amount.

Jefferson-El v. State

330 Md. 99 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1993

Aubert, 118 N.H. 739 , 393 A.2d 567, 568 (1978), that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. … It was clearly sufficient to justify a finding that the petitioner violated the condition of his probation prohibiting use of drugs during the probationary period.

Curtis v. Maryland Baptist Union Ass'n

176 Md. 430 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 1939

The trustee thus appointed duly qualified and administered the trust until July 12th, 1935, at which time its petition to be discharged was granted, after it had filed an accounting, and subsequently, upon petition of Maryland … a home for orphans, never has established one, and so far as can be determined from the record, does not intend to establish such an institution.

Meyer v. State State v. Rivera

445 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2015

First, this Court may strike down a decision that is, ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.’” DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. Freed, 416 Md. 46, 64, 5 A.3d 45, 55 (2010) (quoting State v. … “[I]t is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance, if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles.” Townsend v.

Crofton Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

413 Md. 201 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2010

Apart from this express statement clearly treating bond interest as mortgage interest, we agree with the Board that Title 10 does not define the scope of mortgage interest. See COMAR 10.09.10.01 (“Definitions”). … Only necessary interest, however, qualifies as an allowable cost. 42 C.F.R. § 413.153 (a); PRM § 202.2.

Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

452 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2017

However, because the public policy he is alleging is not clearly discernible, as we cannot determine if a research misconduct violation occurred, we do not recognize the policy to establish his claim for wrongful termination … Yuan was not terminated for refusing to engage in clearly unlawful conduct. Dr.

Mohan v. Norris

386 Md. 63 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2005

The MPTC, however, also possesses the authority to grant a qualified individual a “probationary appointment” as a police officer for a period not to exceed one year “to enable the individual seeking permanent appointment … As discussed infra, a statute establishes a two year probationary period for police employees of the State Police.