Case law

Hunt v. State

321 Md. 387 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 1990

Major Thompson was qualified to form and offer an opinion on the subject. VI. … They tend to establish that Officer Adolfo was clearly and obviously a police officer who was in uniform and performing his duties when murdered.

Walker v. Board of County Commissioners

208 Md. 72 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1955

This County has been practically immune to depression because the people live primarily off the land and in towns catering to the wants of the people on the farms. … He added that if appellants’ land were zoned industrial and no industry was established, other property in the neighborhood would be depreciated.

In Re Karl H.

394 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2006

The statute clearly allows for such contingency planning. See § 5 — 525(d)(1)—(4), supra. … Here the order establishing the concurrent permanency plan is the subject of the dispute before this Court.

Mangels v. Tippett

167 Md. 290 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 1934

After the death of Mangels, his widow, as executrix of the will, qualified and settled the estate through the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. … Tippett as cotrustee, unless on the single fact that the trustee and the cestui que trust are unable to act harmoniously, and that fact, as we have shown, and as is clearly established by Polk v.

Harris v. State

406 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2008

The jurors and any alternates to be impanelled shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the list in the order previously designated by the court and shall be sworn. … The trial tran *123 script clearly shows that the jury was not sworn before the jurors were dismissed for lunch.

Hastings v. PNC Bank, NA.

429 Md. 5 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2012

Consequently, the assets of the Trust do not qualify for the exemption laid out in § 7-203(j). … It is clearly intended to be the sole provision governing deferred payment, never sharing that duty with § 7-210(a)(2).

Shpigel v. White

357 Md. 117 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1999

The original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted business activity, within the scope of Rule 5-803(b)(6), which the custodian or another qualified individual certifies (A) was made, at or near the time of the … Under the statute, and unlike the rule, no certification of the custodian is required to establish authenticity.

Hammond v. Love

187 Md. 138 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1946

No such assumption, however, could qualify the peremptory requirement, in Section 73, that the judges “shall reject” uninitialed ballots. … If this long-established safeguard has become unnecessary, it is not for this Couit to change or abolish it.

Butler v. State

335 Md. 238 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1994

Each could well qualify as a separate crime.” (Emphasis added). Butler, 91 Md.App. at 551 , 605 A.2d at 204 . See also Eiland v. … Accordingly, a jury’s failure to agree, which results in a mistrial, does not establish any facts, and thus cannot establish facts inconsistent with those established by its verdicts of acquittal.”

Surkovich v. Doub

258 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1970

It does *267 not clearly appear upon which ground the board and the court rested their respective opinions. … Klaus was qualified as an expert in real estate, being a realtor and real estate appraiser.

In Re Nicole B.

410 Md. 33 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2009

Nicole was potty trained; her immunizations were updated, and she also attended therapy sessions. Sometime in March or April 2006, John lost his housing and was staying with Wendy and Tommy. … The record in this case establishes that the Department offered numerous services to both John B. and Wendy B.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pak

400 Md. 567 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2007

The Panel is a group, established by Maryland Rule 16-742, that serves’ to consider a Statement of Charges against an attorney. … The Peer Review Panel is established by Maryland Rule 16-742, and the process by which the Panel deliberates is outlined in Maryland Rule 16-743.

Temoney v. State

290 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1981

The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a prima facie case is, of course, a question of law appropriate for resolution at the appellate level. … Consequently, the issue whether Burks applies to a § 643B proceeding is clearly not presented for decision.

Parish v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n

250 Md. 24 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1968

The “back-up papers” clearly established that all sales from the Association were made directly ff> Weldon from the Laurel Plant without going through any facilities of Mutual. … This is clearly the case when the report involved is intended to form the basis of possible future action by the client, as was the situation in the present case.

Baltimore Belt Railroad v. Sattler

100 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1905

, but also to use them in such a way as is alleged and admitted i. e. to the serious injury of the plaintiff and his great discomfort and at the same time deprive him *329 of all remedy, such legislation would we think, clearly … How better could the plaintiff establish his case?

Register of Wills for Baltimore County v. Arrowsmith

365 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2001

district the deceased made his home at the time of death, shall, so far as the laws of the country permit and pending the appointment of an administrator and until letters of administration have been granted, be deemed qualified … The court then discussed the credit system established by the U.S.

Edwards v. State

453 Md. 174 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 24, 2017

Instead, as clearly delineated in the statute, the petitioner need only show that there is a reasonable probability that the testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. … The State claims that DNA cannot establish a negative, meaning that although the presence of Appellant’s DNA on the lighter would tend to establish he was the perpetrator, the absence of his DNA would not tend to establish

Merritt v. State

367 Md. 17 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2001

On appeal, in setting forth the general rule of non-reviewa-bility, this Court in Browne for the first time qualified what had previously been stated as an absolute rule. … And, if newly discovered evidence clearly indicates that the jury has been misled, a new trial should be granted.

Goodrich v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2025

Goodrich clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to self-representation. … Goodrich characterizes the statement in which he advised the court that he wanted an attorney as a statement in which he “expressed a general preference for an attorney [that] was immediately qualified by his statements

Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer

9 G. & J. 479 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 15, 1839

It is clearly the duty of the court to interfere in such a case, if the facts come properly before them.” … The jury are to apply the rule, but the rule itself is. to be established by the courts.