Case law

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan

390 Md. 287 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2005

We are supposed to accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. … Under Maryland Rule 16-604, we determined that the client’s payment of $1,900.00 could not be considered a repay *311 ment for an advanced expense, and thus failed to qualify for exemption under the rule as being deposited

Veditz v. Athey

239 Md. 435 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1965

These Executors duly qualified. The First Codicil contained a number of bequests of articles of furniture to various legatees, including Marie. … Such a holding would be contrary to the established principles of testamentary construction, under which testators are taken as meaning what they clearly say.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Korotki

318 Md. 646 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1990

Four of the claims for loss of consortium and the issue of punitive damages were decided on motion in favor of the defendant. 5 Although Judge Ross commented that the evidence was “razor thin” to establish liability, he was … On the liability issue that court “refuse[d] to declare, as a matter of law, that because some magnesium is perceived to be burning, the owner is immunized from responsibility for the injuries caused by magnesium which is

State v. Miller

475 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 2021

A technician works under the direction of a qualified analyst. FBI QAS, supra, at Std. 2 (definitions). A technical reviewer is a qualified analyst. Id. … Clearly, Mr. Razatos had “reviewed” Mr. Caylor’s analysis by the time of trial. What concerned the Court on this point was the fact that Mr.

Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.

397 Md. 108 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 2007

[that did not] meet the threshold of establishing a clear danger of death or personal injury.” … Under this reasoning, therefore, economic losses qualify as a cognizable injury under negligent misrepresentation. 10 *138 iv.

Donnelly v. Donnelly

198 Md. 341 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 2001

Much testimony was devoted in establishing the financial condition of the parties both before and after the date of the contract in question, but the view we take of this case renders such testimony immaterial. *345 Donnelly … The qualifying words seem clearly applicable to all three parties, and their respective ‘survivors or survivor’.”

Board of Appeals v. Marina Apartments, Inc.

272 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 1974

It is important to keep clearly in mind the distinction between such an administrative review and an inquiry intended to serve as a basis for an independent decision whether or not a building permit should be issued." … it might not qualify as a "local law."

Stannard v. McCool

198 Md. 609 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1951

This statement is qualified by comment (e) thereunder, which states: “Actor’s knowledge of other’s expectancy. … created the twelve thousand dollar contract or of the contract, entered into between the appellant and the Nowland heirs, and that knowledge being essential to a recovery of a judgment in this case, the trial judge was clearly

Brantner v. Watkins

227 Md. 626 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 1962

The fact that the evidence did not establish that the child was in a position of imminent peril in the street within the unobstructed view of the driver distinguishes this case from Miller v. … The facts of this case clearly place it within the second situation and within the ambit of such cases as Cocco v. Lissau, 202 Md. 196 , 95 A. 2d 857 (1953), and Lenehan v. Nicholson, supra.

Toomey v. Shipley

172 Md. 463 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 24, 1937

amended, section 5 included the following provision: “For the purpose of paying the interest and providing for the retirement of the bonds as herein provided and the annual rental for fire hydrants for the water supply to be established … Board of *469 Supervisors, 137 Md. 281 , 112 A. 301 , it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to overcome that objection by the later enactment.

Wooten-Bey v. State

308 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1987

State, 308 Md. 337 , 519 A.2d 735 (1987), McAuliffe, J., speaking for the Court, clearly explained the crime of murder as it exists in Maryland. … These qualifying malevolent states of mind are: 1) the intent to kill, 2) the intent to do grievous bodily harm, 3) the intent to do an act under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (

Mayor of Baltimore Ex Rel. Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

171 Md. 667 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1937

. * * *” It is suggested by the appellant that the words “is liable” relate to and qualify the entire contract, rather than the words “material furnished etc.,” and is used only to identify the obligation of the surety. * … First, while a public policy which is definite, well-known, and clearly established may be invoked to destroy a contract, or possibly to aid in its interpretation, it cannot be invoked to alter or amend it. 13 C.

Montgomery County Education Ass'n v. Board of Education

311 Md. 303 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 1987

According to the State Board, establishing a school calendar was a local board’s “prerogative.” … establishes the wages, hours, etc., for public employees.

Topps Garment Manufacturing Corp. v. State

212 Md. 23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1965

In that case, a Minnesota corporation which had never qualified as a foreign corporation in Iowa and which did not maintain there any office, branch or warehouse, sent salesmen into the State to solicit orders that were always … The authorities establish that appellant is not denied due process of law by what the State has done. No question arises in the case as to the right to obtain jurisdiction in personam over the appellant.

Police Commissioner v. Siegel Enters., Inc.

223 Md. 110 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1960

They contend that, irrespective of the validity of other portions of the act, the prohibition regarding obscenity is clearly constitutional and should be upheld. … Michigan, has fixed barriers of due process of law and freedom of the press which the Maryland statute clearly violates. *134 “These violations permeate the entire act.

Parkinson v. State

14 Md. 184 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1859

In 1 Kent’s Com., 461, 462, (6th Ed.,) the learned author says: “It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes,. *195 that the intention of the law-giver is to be deduced from a view of the whole, and of every part … By this provision authority is most explicitly given to the *200 Legislature to declare when a law shall take effect; which authority is not restricted or qualified, by requiring any previous publication.

Taylor v. NationsBank, N.A.

365 Md. 166 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 2001

Scott,” which “is clearly account information under any possible reasonable definition of the term, and is certainly within the scope of § 1-301 et seq. of the Financial Institutions Code, as well as the definition provided … When he opened his account with Sovran Bank, the respondent's predecessor, the petitioner agreed to the rules and conditions established by the bank.

Walker v. Department of Housing & Community Development

422 Md. 80 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 2011

. § 1437f(o )(4), HUD regulations, and the procedure established by its Administrative Plan, is responsible for processing and qualifying the low income applicants. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o )(6). … Though Wicomico County has established a housing authority, the county presumably has decided not to administer the HCVP program.

Getty v. Carroll County Board of Elections

399 Md. 710 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2007

And be it enacted, That the inhabitants of Carroll county, shall have, hold, and enjoy all the immunities, rights, and privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants of any other county in this State.” 4 . … The language clearly stated that "the Commission Redistricting Committee shall report its recommendations to the Carroll County Legislative Delegation to the General Assembly for consideration at the following legislative

Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Administration

418 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2011

To this end, revocation or suspension of a license clearly prevents a wrongdoer from further engaging in the licensed activity, at least temporarily.” Id. at 372-73, 739 A.2d at 67-68 , quoting, in part, State v. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor