Case law

John A. Ex Rel. A.A. v. Board of Education

400 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2007

Clearly, the IDEA was not meant to provide a forum for the advancement of such claims. See, e.g., Hunter v. … of procedures. (1) Any state educational agency, State agency, or local educational agency that receives assistance under this subchapter shall establish and maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure

Degner v. Mayor of Baltimore

74 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 1891

A lien is said to be a qualified right, which in a given case may be exercised over the property of another. Lickbarrow vs. Mason, 6 East, 20. … This case seems to us to establish the right of the State and municipality, in a case like the one we are considering, to have their taxes paid rather than eontrarywise.

Attorney Grievance v. White

480 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 2022

Rule 1.5(c) clearly requires that contingency fee arrangements be made in writing, bearing the signature of the client. … Aggravating Factors We recognize that not all the conduct cited by the hearing judge qualifies as an aggravating factor.

Dixon v. Ford Motor Co.

433 Md. 137 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2013

indicating some disagreement with those decisions), denied the motion, qualified Dr. … Clearly, at that point, the court was convinced that a mistrial was not called for and that the curative instruction sufficed.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeter

365 Md. 279 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 17, 2001

As such, the hearing judge’s conclusion of law is not entitled to review under the clearly erroneous standard applied by the Majority (Maj. op. at 288-89). … See, e.g., Fezell, 361 Md. at 252-53 , 760 A.2d at 1117-18 (letters from Bar Counsel qualify as lawful demands for purposes of rule 8.1(b)); Hallmon, 343 Md. at 407-08 , 681 A.2d 510, 519-20 (holding that attorney violated

Ford v. Baltimore County

268 Md. 172 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1973

Klaus, a well-qualified real estate expert who testified for the appellants and who, as we have noted, attended the “hearing” of March 10, 1971, on behalf of the appellants. Mr. … We find the case at bar to be clearly distinguishable from Gibson v.

State v. Lassotovitch

162 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1932

But this dotes not mean that it is unnecessary to allege such facts in connection with the commission of the offense as will certainly put the accused on full notice of what he is called upon to defend, and establish such … The distinction between the description of the particular act and its characterization as a crime is clearly stated in Armacost v. State, supra."

Kenwood Gardens Condominiums, Inc. v. Whalen Properties, LLC

449 Md. 313 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 19, 2016

Resolution 108-11 was not the final determination that established that the Whalen Properties PUD would be built. … It was never established that Councilman Quirk was knowingly involved in any wrongdoing.

Liverpool v. Baltimore Diamond Exchange Inc.

369 Md. 304 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2002

It is clear from a plain reading of subsection (d) that a C.O.D. transaction is established at the option of the layaway seller and by consent of the buyer. … Petitioner testified that he purchased the watch as a Christmas gift for his wife, thereby qualifying the watch as consumer goods. 9 .

Citizens Against Slots at the Mall v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC

429 Md. 176 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2012

The implementing legislation, inter alia, established the Education Trust *193 Fund consisting of certain revenues anticipated from the video lottery terminals. … Thus from 1943 until 1968, slot machines, as well as any other “amusement devices,” were lawful in Anne Arundel County and were present in commercial establishments throughout the County.

Cotton v. State

386 Md. 249 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 2005

Although only three persons were named in the warrant— Jones and the two Boldens — the affidavit established that several other people with a history of criminal and violent conduct were involved, and the warrant clearly … officers unless it is accompanied by the ability to temporarily seize any dangerous individuals that are located during the search, we conclude that detaining potentially dangerous persons for the duration of the arrest qualifies

Hechinger Co. v. State's Attorney

272 Md. 706 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 1974

In that case, we found that the three defendants did not qualify for the statutory exemption accorded to “[d]rugstores whose basic business is the sale of drugs and related items” because their basic business was not the … to conduct business for labor or profit in the usual manner and location or to operate its establishment in any manner for the general public.

Claude v. Handy

83 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1896

. • The appellant excepted to the report and award of the commissioners for the following reasons : 1st, because the commissioners were not legally sworn in or qualified; 2d, that the decree directed a partition of only a … But the amendment allowed was clearly within the power of the Court, and when it was represented to it that the defence and conduct of the case of the defendant would have been different had the bill as amended been originally

Segerman v. Jones

256 Md. 109 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1970

It is for these reasons that we think that finding No. 8 was clearly erroneous. … Whether or not a teacher is immune from suit while acting within the scope of her employment. “4.

Express Scripts v. Anne Arundel Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 2026

We determined that the county’s issuance of permits was governmental in nature and that the county was therefore entitled to immunity for claims associated with the permits. Id. at 547, 550. … The nature of the right—adolescent mental health—may qualify as a public good, but it lacks the concreteness of clean water or unobstructed roadways.

Kaylor v. Wilson

260 Md. 707 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1971

Curiously enough, the documentary proof needed to establish even a paper chain of title to the property was absent. … Though unrefuted, neither of these passing references are precise or authoritative enough to qualify as even slight proof that taxes were paid during the critical years in the early ‘thirties.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Roberson

373 Md. 328 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 2003

This clearly constituted abandonment of a matter for which Roberson has assumed responsibility. … See also In re Allison, 267 Ga. 638, 642 , 481 S.E.2d 211, 215 (1997) (recognizing that “the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings ... is to protect the public from attorneys who are not qualified to practice law due

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sparrow

314 Md. 421 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1988

Those cases, however, are clearly distinguishable. Each involved an attorney who suffered from alcoholism, and whose acts were a direct result of his condition. … To qualify for a Maryland real estate broker’s license, an applicant must, among other things, "be of good character and reputation.” Maryland Code (1988 Supp.), Art. 56A, § 4-305(b).

Maryland Transportation Authority v. King

369 Md. 274 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2002

Comm'n, 40 Md.App. 329, 335 , 391 A.2d 1213 (1978): `It is well established that rules and regulations promulgated by an administrative agency cannot be waived, suspended or disregarded in a particular case as long as such … Eli Lilly and Co., 998 F.2d 931, 936 (Fed.Cir.1993) (abuse of discretion occurs when decision is clearly unreasonable or arbitrary); Haworth, Inc. v.

Permanent Financial Corp. v. Montgomery County

308 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1986

The Height Limitation The height limitation for a building erected in the CBD-1 zone under the method of development utilized here is established by § 59-C-6.235. … The penthouse fails to qualify for an exemption in at least two respects. First, the plans show an office in the penthouse for janitorial or security personnel, and an office is not an exempt roof structure.