Case law

Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman

291 Md. 390 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1981

The former announces principles on which the government, about to be established, will be based. … This point is more clearly indicated in Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 887 , 59 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1979).

Wash. Gas Light v. Public Serv. Comm'n.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2018

On May 27, 2015, Chief Judge Romine issued an order, concluding that for “an infrastructure replacement project to be an ‘eligible infrastructure replacement’ under the STRIDE law,” and thus qualifying for accelerated … Clearly, Washington Gas did not discuss using the STRIDE statute with regard to out-of-state infrastructure projects.

White v. Laird

127 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1915

Stevenson was appointed Supervisor of certain public roads, for two years and until his suecessar was appointed and qualified. … The well established doctrine “that the writ of mandamus does not lie to control the discretion of any tribunal, however limited its jurisdiction may be” was repeated, and none of the exceptions to the rule mentioned are

Jolley v. State

282 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1978

It was stipulated that he was so qualified. … We cannot say that his judgment on the evidence was clearly erroneous. Maryland. Rule 886.

Lamone v. Schlakman

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2017

A temporary restraining order may be granted only if it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or other statement under oath that immediate, substantial, and irreparable … Sparaco’s candidacy as early as August 2, 2016, when the State Board posted the names of the qualified candidates on its website.

Devincentz v. State

460 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 13, 2018

His answers clearly revealed the relevance of his testimony. Joshua’s statement that K.C. … Even if Devincentz had established that K.C.’s statement occurred right before she moved out of his house—which, again, he did not—K.C.’s statement would still be too remote in time to qualify for the “statement of intent

Webster v. State

359 Md. 465 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2000

subject to reinterpretation, that the trial court had no authority to reduce a sentence legally imposed pursuant to mandatory sentencing provisions, simply because the Legislature amended those provisions to remove the qualifying … The Committee believes that the mandatory minimum sentences established in this section should be applicable only to crimes against persons or crimes that directly involve a threat to human life.

Gray v. State

254 Md. 385 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1969

These extremes in result should not be left to the fortuitous circumstance of what court it is. which decides that there was not enough evidence to establish his guilt. … The rule of these cases, which dealt *399 with the Double Jeopardy Clause, has been thought wise because it protects the societal interest in trying people accused of crime, rather than granting them immunization because

Berry & State Farm v. Queen

469 Md. 674 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2020

More broadly, State Farm responds that the uninsured motorist statute clearly and unambiguously does not provide coverage for loss of use damages. … It is well established that [t]his Court provides judicial deference to the policy decisions enacted into law by the General Assembly.

Wood v. Wood

227 Md. 211 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1961

The case is almost wholly one of fact and of the application to the facts of established rules of law. … The legal effect of this commitment under Code 1957, Art. 59, § 31 presumably made by two qualified physicians after separate examinations is that the wife was insane and that the disease required her to be placed in a hospital

Pulley v. State

287 Md. 406 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1980

With the timeliness of the motion to dismiss the indictment on former jeopardy grounds established, we turn now to its merits, which are so patently frivolous that we can reject petitioner’s claim of error from its denial … However, we conclude that a retrial under the circumstances present here is clearly permissible. As Judge Eldridge made plain for this Court in Jourdan v.

White v. State

300 Md. 719 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1984

State, 220 Md. 29 , 150 A.2d 895 (1959). 1 Nevertheless, several areas of that discretion have been supplanted by principles of law established by this Court. … Thus, there had been “no impairment of the defendant’s right to be tried by a properly qualified jury.”

Appleton Regional Community Alliance v. County Commissioners

404 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2008

Second, if the governmental act in question involves a quasi-judicial process, the inquiry moves to the question of whether it qualifies as a “zoning action.” … The distinction between planning and zoning is well established in Maryland law. The Court of Special Appeals noted in Stephans v.

County Commissioners v. English

182 Md. 514 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1943

Jackson, 170 Md. 251 , at pages 264 and 265, 183 A. 534 , 539: “For those ‘who make the law’ are to govern by promulgated, established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, ‘for … But, as stated by the lower court, ‘the thing really taxed is the act of the owner in taking his property out of storage into his own possession (absolute or qualified) for the purpose of making some one of the only uses

Gregg v. State

377 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2003

He explained very clearly why he preferred conditions in the Super Max facility in Baltimore to those of the St. Mary’s County Detention Center. … But I am going to— COURT: Well, I am telling you, it will be, if you qualify. GREGG: I — . If I qualify, that is a big if.

Blaine v. Blaine

336 Md. 49 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1994

He contends that the trial court was clearly erroneous in granting indefinite alimony to Ms. Blaine. Dr. … In Turrisi , we recognized that the legislative intent clearly favored rehabilitative alimony.

Reed v. State

353 Md. 628 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 21, 1999

If the motion in limine ruling was definitive, and thus a final ruling, does it remain admissible even though subsequent events at trial have established that it is not relevant? … That language in Prout was qualified by a requirement that the court make clear that its ruling was intended to be definitive. .

Mayor of Baltimore v. DeLuca-Davis Construction Co.

210 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1956

The testimony shows that the estimator for DeLuca-Davis, a qualified engineer, prepared the figures for the bid. … The Robinson opinion shows clearly that the form of the action, the circumstances that it was at law, was important, if not decisive in the result.

Rockower Bros. v. Comptroller of Treasury

240 Md. 379 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1965

In paragraph 11, it was provided, that the licensee shall furnish and engage qualified and competent employees for the conduct of the department. … Prior to collection, the customer, who had taken a qualified possession of an article, could change his mind and return it to the racks or counter and take a qualified possession of another article in its place or indeed

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Loane

420 Md. 211 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2011

Respondent nonetheless contends that subsection (a)(2) of the Statute “clearly establishes that the Implied Consent Law only applies on a highway or private property used by the public in general. … The motorist argued in that case that the MVA must establish as part of its prima facie case for license suspension that the blood alcohol test was administered by a “qualified person,” as that term is defined in C.J. § 10