Case law

Cox v. Revelle

125 Md. 579 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1915

It is within the discretion of that department of the 'State government to decide whether the whole or any part of either the natural bars or the barren bottoms shall be open to free or to qualified public use, or shall be … In view of the safeguards thus placed by the statute around the rights and interests of the appellant, there is clearly no impairment of contract to which the constitutional'provision relied upon can he applied.

Gilliam v. State

331 Md. 651 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 1993

That finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Daneman was assisted by an associate is not clearly erroneous. B. Gilliam argues that the post conviction judge was clearly erroneous in finding that “Mr.

In the Matter of SmartEnergy

486 Md. 502 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 2024

; and (7) establishing “procedures for dispute resolution.” … The Court stated that “when an agency changes a position clearly established in its own prior precedent it ‘must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately 6

Miller v. Comptroller of Maryland

398 Md. 272 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 2007

Such a result is clearly *475 illogical and absurd. … This is clearly wrong.

McChan v. State

238 Md. 149 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 1966

These prosecutions for armed robbery and other offenses incident thereto arose out of a series of five holdups of liquor dispensing establishments in Baltimore City committed within less *152 than a fortnight at the end of … Moreover, the right of immunity from unreasonable search and seizure is personal and one who disclaims ownership or other possessory interest has no right to protest the legality of a search and seizure. Carter v.

Walker v. Department of Human Resources

379 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2004

That ruling, as articulated, assumed that the MOU qualified as a collective bargaining agreement for purposes of § 12 — 102(b)(6). … Art. 30, § 1 clearly precludes parallel and alternative procedures for resolving disputes and carefully delineates when each of the two procedures is exclusively applicable.

Peterson v. State

467 Md. 713 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2020

A writ of error coram nobis is a form of Maryland common law relief that requires a petitioner to satisfy certain qualifying elements. … State, 361 Md. 52, 760 A.2d 647 (2000), we clearly established that the significant collateral consequences must arise from the conviction.

Doe v. Catholic Relief Services

484 Md. 640 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2023

Analysis CRS contends that the removal in 1973 of the “religious” qualifier before “activities” in the exemption is significant. … Clearly, in 2000, when Governor Parris N.

Henley v. Prince George's County

305 Md. 320 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1986

We have also said that this discretion will not be disturbed unless clearly shown to have been abused, and that this is particularly true where judgment has been entered on the merits rather than as a result of a default. … Noting that the County was immune from liability for its discretionary acts in determining to release the juvenile and in selecting the juvenile’s mother as an appropriate custodian, and finding that there was no duty to

Beall v. Montgomery County Council

240 Md. 77 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 1965

All of those who produced the proposed plan are well qualified and the proposed plan and the elaborate supporting data indicating the need for the proposed apartments, traffic conditions, effect on school facilities, the … Permission to establish such a zone was granted (or refused) upon a petition filed by an individual property owner, with appropriate notice, etc.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Stuyvesant Insurance

226 Md. 379 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1961

Undoubtedly, the nature of the bail bond business makes it clearly a proper subject for police regulation. … Clearly, the writing of bail bonds by corporate sureties comes well within this definition.

Goldman v. Rubin

292 Md. 693 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1982

The effect of a redemption that qualifies under § 303 is to treat the property received by the shareholder on a capital gains basis and not as a dividend. 5 Most of the details of the redemption were established at a meeting … We hold only that this Court cannot say on the present record that it would be clearly erroneous for a fact finder to conclude that the terms of the note actually issued *719 involved an abuse of discretion and thus we do

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Webster

402 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 2007

In our review of the record, the hearing judge’s findings of fact generally will be accepted unless they are clearly erroneous. … Clearly, Respondent’s failure to deposit the $3,000 retainer into his escrow account was a violation of MRPC 1.15(a) and we overrule Respondent’s exception.

Thanos v. State

330 Md. 77 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1993

The psychiatric witnesses established that Thanos came from an extremely dysfunctional family. … The record clearly establishes that Thanos murdered Gregory Taylor while in the process of stealing his vehicle.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. State

36 Md. 519 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1872

Every body understood this to be the established constitutional law upon the subject, and contracts and dealings were regulated by parties according to this standard. … The former decisions of that Court have been reversed to a qualified extent only, and this has been by a bare majority of the Judges.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Saridakis

402 Md. 413 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2007

Much more importantly, the manner in which Smith handled this matter establishes that he was not independent in fact. His inquiry into the facts essential to proper representation was minimal. … One, it clearly was dicta.

Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen

399 Md. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 2007

“Austin was clearly a pivotal figure in most, if not all, aspects of the musical life of the Cathedral and school. … Significantly, it was established that there was “no secular health or safety rationale for the work performed by the [mjashgichim,” 363 F.3d at 302 , who “[is] qualified under Judaic law to supervise the preparation of food

Green v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

259 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 14, 1970

There is no specific minimum use requirement needed to establish a public right-of-way by prescription, although slight or occasional use of unenclosed land is not sufficient.. Feldstein v. … The finding of no liability obviates the need for us to discuss the appellants’ questions concerning punitive damages against the Sanitary Commission or the questions appellees have raised concerning sovereign immunity.

Fuller v. Republican Central Committee

444 Md. 613 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2015

The court rejected Petitioners’ argument that, under Maryland Rule 15-504(a),2 they were not required to establish a likelihood of success on the merits in order to prevail on the motion. … Contrary to Petitioners’ belief, this standard supplements the four-factor test for interlocutory injunctions established in Armacost rather than replaces it.

Winslow v. Atz

168 Md. 230 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1935

Defendant then filed (1) general issue pleas, (2) a qualified denial of the execution of the “authorization,” and (3) two other special pleas. … The same principle is very clearly expressed in Clark v.