Case law

Grand Lodge v. Mayor of Baltimore

157 Md. 542 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1929

Baltimore City, 93 Md. 634 ), and the party asserting the exemption must show that the power to tax in the particular case has been clearly relinquished, and, as this court has said Jn Appeal Tax Court v. … Tax assessors are but ill qualified to exempt real property according to equitable interests,- and the valuation and assessment of land are an administrative function which a sound public policy would reduce to its simplest

Jones v. Collins

94 Md. 403 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1902

We apprehend that the ruling of the Court in the case before us was based upon the form of the question, which we think clearly objectionable, because it simply asked whether she regarded him as "entirely sane," and did not … Ward, 53 Md. 382 , it is not qualified, as in that case, by requiring it to be considered in connection with all the other instructions granted upon that subject.

Ash v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

72 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 18, 1890

action founded exclusively upon the statute of a neighboring State, the only principle upon which it can be sustained in the Courts of this State, is that of comity; and if it be not sustainable upon that ground, there was clearly … But even the qualified decisions of the Court of Appeals of New York, and of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon this subject, have not met with general approval, and have not been generally followed by subsequent

Gonzalez v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2024

(citation omitted). 15 Form I-918, Supplement A (Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient) is a form that a petitioner fills out with information about any qualifying family member included … That is clearly not correct—if a defendant has multiple reasons to lie, it cannot be the case that a denial of the right to impeach is reversible only if the defendant was denied the right to cross-examine about each reason

Hayes v. State

355 Md. 615 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1999

The cut-off is clearly not when argument and instructions are concluded or even when the jury leaves the courtroom, as urged by Hayes, but when the jury commences deliberations. See United States v. … Assurance that the alternate juror remains qualified to serve is a prerequisite to a substitution and, unless waived by the defendant, must be established on the record.

Stokes v. State

379 Md. 618 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 18, 2004

At least two courts have required the defendant to establish prejudice. See Potter v. Perini, 545 F.2d 1048, 1050 (6th Cir.1976); State v. Grovenstein, 335 S.C. 347 , 517 S.E.2d 216, 218 (1999). … At issue was the meaning of “when the jury retires to consider its verdict,” contained in Rule 4-312(b)(3). 9 We concluded as follows: “[A]n alternate juror who remains qualified to serve may be substituted for a regular

Air Lift, Ltd. v. Board of County Commissioners

262 Md. 368 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1971

Myer was not qualified as an expert in regard to sanitation or food supply but permitted him to testify in regard to other matters relating to rock festivals. Mr. … The zoning ordinance clearly requires the filing of an application for a certificate of zoning for the proposed use of land in this case.

Blum v. State

56 L.R.A. 322 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1902

Sonnehill, counsel for the Blums, were appointed receivers ; that upon qualifying, he went to the store and took the key from the constable who was in charge under an attachment which had been issued, and opened the store … Renlein, supra, “that fact is not so clearly established as to justify us in saying that a fraud was perpetrated through the medium of the agency of a character sufficient to justify criminal proceedings therefor.”

Wright v. Johns Hopkins Health Systems Corp.

353 Md. 568 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1999

The Life-Sustaining Procedures Act permitted an individual, who was qualified to execute a will, to execute a declaration, called an advance directive, directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures … The Act establishes the framework by which health care decisions may be made. An individual, called the declarant, may make an advance directive. This may be done orally or in writing. § 5-601(b).

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shaw

354 Md. 636 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 1999

Although “prima facie correct and not [to] be disturbed unless clearly *648 erroneous,” Attorney Grievance Comm’n. v. … disciplined for conduct occurring when they are not practicing law only if that conduct is dishonest or is conduct that reflects adversely on the profession, not each time they may undertake tasks for which they are under qualified

Maryland House of Correction v. Jenkins

228 Md. 146 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 1962

This was granted and was continued until the death of her husband, when she qualified for social security benefits. … The question of dependency in this case was clearly one of fact to be decided by the jury, and the “reasonable probability” instruction was proper.

Chertkov v. State

335 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1994

State, 321 Md. 515 [, 583 A.2d 710 ] (1991), establishes that a binding plea agreement, coupled with Maryland Rule 4-243(c)(3), has the force and effect of law.” Chertkov, 95 Md.App. at 108 , 619 A.2d at 558 . … Furthermore, the modified sentence fell within the permitted range of sentences for the particular offense; but for the plea agreement, the modified sentence would be immune from attack on illegality grounds.

Shofer v. Stuart Hack Co.

324 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 1991

In 1971 Catalina adopted a pension plan which qualified under the Internal Revenue Code. Shofer was and.is the plan’s sole trustee. … He clearly was a consultant to the plan. Both parties also *100 characterize him as a “plan administrator.”

Louis Eckels & Sons Ice Manufacturing Co. v. Cornell Economizer Co.

119 Md. 107 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1912

If it could be held technically an error to exclude these questions, it was clearly not a harmful error. Dr. W. B. D. … This clearly implied that he would make no objection to the amount claimed to be due as the purchase money of the machines.

Redman v. State

363 Md. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2001

The majority minimizes the fact that the right is designed to afford a fair trial in cases that qualify for the death penalty. … In such instances, the defendant should not have to establish prejudice. The establishment of prejudice is an impossibility, I would suggest — in the circumstances here present.

In re Adoption/Guardianship of Tracy K.

434 Md. 198 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2013

This argument is inconsistent with the established jurisdiction over related family law matters. Maryland law grants the circuit and juvenile courts the jurisdiction to terminate parental rights. … The guardian need not be approved by or qualify in any court.” .

Cushman & Wakefield v. DRV Greentec

463 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2019

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED, holding that even if petitioners qualified as third-party beneficiaries, that only gave them the right to sue whomever was liable. … Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the requisite elements of quantum meruit. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed for largely the reasons given by the Circuit Court.

In Re Montrail M.

325 Md. 527 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1992

It is firmly established that proceedings under the Act are civil in nature. 4 . … But, the Court qualified that view later.

Andrews v. Governor of Maryland

294 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1982

establishing its constitutional infirmity. … It is in the 1864 Constitution that the restriction first appears that "[w]hen two or more amendments shall be submitted by the General Assembly to the qualified electors of the State at the same election, they shall be so

Brown v. Hebb

167 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1934

as it was, into a promise to pay a much larger amount, which his other remarks clearly, as we think, show he deemed an unjust demand?. … Such an admission would clearly seem to be within the obvious and apparent scope of the agency, formally made, and admissible.