Case law

Stoddard v. State

389 Md. 681 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 2005

Rather, words qualify as a “statement” under the Rule if they constitute “an oral or written assertion.” … Implied assertions from speech intended as communication clearly come within the definition of a statement under rule 5.801(a)(1).

Piscatelli v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners

378 Md. 623 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 2003

Thus this activity qualifies neither as a form of ‘intimate association’ nor as a form of ‘expressive association’ as those terms were described in Roberts [v. … similar establishments.

Aspen Hill Venture v. Montgomery County Council

265 Md. 303 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1972

The District Council argues that such a proposition of law would require it to grant a requested commercial zoning as a matter of law once change or mistake has been established. … Without intending to qualify or minimize the legal effect of the cases cited above, we think that it would have been proper for the lower court to have considered the Faller decisions for the limited purpose of determining

Baber v. John C. Knipp & Sons

164 Md. 55 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 1933

(Witness) : If you allow me I can answer yes, but I will have to qualify it. (Commissioner Crothers): This is all right, doctor. … It would seem to be established in this state, in workmen’s compensation cases, that “proximate cause” means that the result could have been caused by the accident, and that there has not intervened, between the accident

Blanks v. State

406 Md. 526 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 2008

to a relation of trust and confidence,’ ” is not itself grounded in the Constitution; nevertheless, it is “ ‘essentially interrelated with the specific constitutional guaranties of the individual’s right to counsel and immunity … The prosecutor’s comment in rebuttal argument that defense counsel “barely skimmed over his own client’s silly testimony, because clearly he didn’t buy that mess either up on the stand,” was struck by the court and the jury

Cty. Comm'rs, St. Mary's Cty. v. Aiken

483 Md. 590 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 2023

As noted above, the language in the Brady Deed clearly and unequivocally conveyed the land to the State in fee simple. The Brady Deed did not convey an easement. … Chesapeake Beach Land & Improvement Co. of Calvert Cnty., 172 Md. 101, 114, 191 A. 71, 77 (1937), and must be “clearly manifest[ed,]” Conway v. Bd. of Cnty.

Baltimore Cnty. v. Quinlan

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2019

First, we review 1 The questions, as granted, were as follows: (1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, given the lack of a clearly … We should not change the meaning of the statute by adding qualifying language which would limit workers’ entitlement to relief.

State Administration Board of Election Laws v. Billhimer

314 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 21, 1988

In her proposed conclusions of law, the arbitrator, after quoting from §§ 1 and 3(13) of the Act, stated: “Clearly, the Deputy Administrator position is one requiring definite and specific expertise.” … Thus, to determine as a matter of law that Billhimer was a classified employee totally ignores the uncontradicted evidence that he never qualified for this status “under the terms of this article.”

State Commission on Human Relations v. Talbot County Detention Center

370 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 2002

Section 4 clearly provides a circuit court with statutory jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief at any time after a complaint has been filed with the Commission. … In fact, subpoena use is qualified by the premise that “if completion of an investigation requires the issuance of a subpoena ...”

Bontempo v. Lare

444 Md. 344 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 2015

Lare owned 51% of the shares (apparently an effort to qualify for government contracting preferences for woman-owned and managed small businesses). … The Circuit Court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we limit this discussion to Mr. Lare’s conduct. .

McDermott v. Dougherty

385 Md. 320 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 2005

Instead, we continued, in the very next sentence: ...” and we proceeded to describe the qualifying language from Hoffman . … App.2d 438, 452 , 888 P.2d 875, 884 (1995), a paternity case that cited Williams, supra, saying “On the one hand, it is clearly established that parental rights, not the child’s best interests, control in disputes between

Williams v. Broening, Mayor

135 Md. 226 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 1919

“The Court ought not to set aside their clearly expressed will, unless required to do so by some imperative rule of law. Mr. … Afid in connection with those provisos to refer to the Annexation Act of 1888, as amended by Act of 1908, Chapter 286, now codified as Section 4 of Article IV of Public Local Laws, which establishes three classes .of property

State v. Schuller

280 Md. 305 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1977

The State, however, overlooks the qualified nature of the above-quoted remarks. … The test of severability is the effectiveness of an act to carry out, without its invalid portions, the legislative intent in enacting it.’ ” A long established principle of statutory construction in determining severability

Mayor of Baltimore v. Polakoff

233 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1963

* interpret Section 32 to mean that the Board must grant an exception unless it can demonstrate from the evidence before it that such action would not fall within the provisions, guides and standards of Section 35 (j), qualified … The Court said (at p. 638): “* * * when the legislative body of a municipality adopts a comprehensive zoning plan, exceptions should be allowed only in such cases as are clearly exceptions in fact to the purposes of the ordinance

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stillwell

434 Md. 69 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2013

Finally, although it is not clearly stated in the stipulated facts that Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the firm’s ‘Outside Work’ policy by establishing TCR as a personal venture, his misuse of firm resources … In Garcia , the attorney, knowing that his client did not have the employment background and experience needed to qualify for a position as an alien worker, signed a letter, drafted by his co-conspirator, that falsely stated

Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc.

403 Md. 367 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 2008

, the larger the judgment, the greater both the client’s burden and the lawyer’s impunity: “The [contrary] rule would seem to penalize a lawyer for his negligence when it costs his client a modest judgment but grant him immunity … That established their loss and liability and thus capped the value of their cross-claims.

Goldman v. Crowther

147 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1925

The danger inherent in any departure from these prin- *296 ciples is forcibly and clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Holmes in Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. … When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.

Poe v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

118 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1912

United Surety Company, these complainants were appointed receivers for said United Surety Company and duly qualified as such, and have since, on May 23, 1911, under the authority and direction of said Court, paid said judgment … The distinction which is decisive of this case is now firmly established, and is nowhere more clearly stated than in Amer. Emp. Liability Ins. Co. v. Fordyce, 36 S. W.

Harvey v. Marshall

389 Md. 243 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 14, 2005

We therefore conclude that, although the language in Jessica G. is instructive as to the generally broad scope of § 5-1038(b), it aids *273 little ill terms of determining when that broad scope is qualified or narrowed by … established under § 10-108.7 of this subtitle; and (9) use established legal processes to enforce court orders to pay support. § 10 — 108(a). 21 .

Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co.

213 Md. 414 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1957

We do not feel that it required the professional skill of a medical doctor to qualify a witness to testify that one, who is supposed to be in a faint and “squints” her eye when the eyelid is raised, is possibly feigning or … However, that case is clearly distinguishable from the immediate one. There, the basic question involved was the cause of the retroflexion and retroversion of the plaintiff’s uterus.