Case law

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Union Bridge Electric Manufacturing Co.

145 Md. 644 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1924

It may be contended that the words quoted immediately above, and italicized by us, must be considered in connection with, and are qualified by, the first part of section 58; and that all the provisions of this section are … That clearly means that, after two months from the date of the award, if the employer or insurer has failed to institute -suit against the tort feasor, whether because of an appeal from the award or for any other reason,

Goertz v. McNally

185 Md. 170 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1945

While the form of the issue as to partial invalidity is somewhat broader than the allegations of the second petition and caveat, the use of this form is supported by established practice. … This Court said: “The affidavit of the appellant upon which that motion was based, shows that the issue prayed in the Orphans’ Court was not a separate and independent issue, but one intended to change or qualify the issues

Lentz v. Pilert

60 Md. 296 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1883

He is clearly within the reason of the rule. … He is not excluded by the letter of the law, for there is no qualifying word prefixed or added to the word “ creditor ” except “ largest,” which only indicates the order of preference.

Walker v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.

231 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 1963

Section 4.01 establishes fixed rentals for certain periods, and there is no controversy with regard thereto. … The evidence, we think, establishes that the entire northern building as originally constructed constituted one building.

Gregory Smith v. Wakefield, LP

462 Md. 713 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2019

Unlike the previous two instances, however, the Court did not qualify its holding with a reference to the possibility of waiver of limitations. … While the status of this language as dicta is ultimately debatable, it is undisputable that this language clearly set forth guidance from this Court for those that wished to establish a residential lease under seal.

Ferguson v. Secretary of State

249 Md. 510 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1968

An emergency law shall remain in force notwithstanding such petition, but shall stand repealed thirty days after having been rejected by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon; provided, however, that no measure … Although the affidavit in the present case fully complies with the requirements of Section 4 as to the first mandatory requirement, it clearly fails in regard to the second mandatory requirement, i.e., to state that of the

Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy

50 Md. 321 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1879

of protection for homeless indigent females, to qualify them by training and education for the discharge of such domestic duties as will enable them to procure protection and support, to visit and nurse the sick, and for … If in the present case there was proof that any income or revenue *342 was derived from the education of children at this academy or school hy means of charges or tuition fees, or if it were not, on the contrary, clearly

Hargrove v. Board of Trustees

310 Md. 406 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1987

To date, this group clearly encompasses gender discriminations, e.g., Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 , 99 S.Ct. 1760 , 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979); Craig v. … We pointed out (id. at 716, 426 A.2d 929 ): “The [challenged] statute does not establish a precondition for receipt of the pension; rather, it flatly prohibits *422 this group of state pensioners from engaging in their profession

Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Malakoff

273 Md. 214 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1974

Respondent also claims he ascertained at this time that Complainant earned only $8,000 per year, and that this was insufficient to ‘qualify’ him as a tenant at Babbitt Lane. … Assuming this to be true, it is questionable that this alone could be the foundation upon which to establish a violation of Maryland’s fajr^ housing statute.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gansler

377 Md. 656 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 2003

Gansler expressed his view that the “four tó three” opinion “was clearly an effort to overturn the death penalty in the Perry case.” D. … Not all criminal record information would qualify as "information in a public record,” even if the term is defined broadly.

Bryant v. State

393 Md. 196 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2006

The General Assembly, however, expressly added these two qualifiers and they must be given the effect intended. … We agree with the Court of Special Appeals’ conclusion that “the objective evidence clearly showed that the murderer acted with premeditation. We note, for example, that an individual was seen pacing near Ms.

Chackness v. Board of Education

209 Md. 88 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1988

Mayor and City Council, 137 Md. 335 , that the Board was immune from suit. At the trial of the cases, Judge Digges, sitting by special assignment, directed a verdict for Choate. … Clearly the number of seconds is wrong, or the distances are wrong, or the rate of speed is wrong, or all are wrong.

Jones v. State

410 Md. 681 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 22, 2009

Petitioner concedes that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses in Aberdeen, Maryland on December 23, 2004. … We apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review to that factual finding.

Cavacos v. Sarwar

313 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1988

“2—Was the trial judge’s finding that [Sarwar] would not have been entitled to rescission, because the contract was a sale in gross, supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous?” … law that one has not been guilty of negligence, the truth of all the credible evidence tending to sustain the claim of negligence must be assumed and all favorable inferences of fact fairly deducible therefrom tending to establish

Kicherer v. Kicherer

285 Md. 114 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1979

Our conclusion in this regard follows from the “well-established rule in this State that unless the decree also adjudicates a separate and unrelated claim in favor of a litigant, he cannot, knowing the facts, both voluntarily … In any event, and at a minimum, the filing of reports and accountings clearly must be required on a much more frequent basis than annually, as the present decree provides.

Insurance Commissioner of the State v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

296 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 1983

The claims were for psychotherapy services rendered by qualified social workers to whom the employees had been referred by their physicians. … The court then reasoned ( 410 A.2d at 640 ): "Furthermore, insurance laws which do not 'relate to’ employee welfare plans are clearly not affected by the general superseding provisions of § 1144 (a), and therefore do not

Driggs Corp. v. Maryland Aviation Administration

348 Md. 389 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1998

That would effectively place the burden of persuasion on the contractor, which the Federal authorities clearly hold is not the law. Indeed, that is not how BCA in this case viewed the matter. … It made the same concession in the circuit court and clearly acquiesced before BCA in that procedure.

Unitas v. Temple

314 Md. 689 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1989

The court said that the foregoing finding of fact “clearly establishes the requisite degree of part performance.” Id. … ] cases, in spite of the fact that they are clearly included within its words.

Parkville Federal Savings Bank v. Maryland National Bank

343 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1996

These kinds of problems can be avoided by requiring that writs of garnishment clearly and unambiguously identify on their face the judgment debtors to which they apply. … Banking institutions have immunity from liability for impounding property claimed by a third party, but only when that property is impounded pursuant to a court order.

Gill v. Staylor

93 Md. 453 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1901

This is a case, we think, of qualifying, not contradictory, prayers. Rosenstock v. Ortwine, 46 Md. 400 ; P. W. & B. R. R. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 166 . … This was clearly error. Balt. Elevator Co. v. Neal, 65 Md. 457 .