Case law

Estate of Blair v. Austin

469 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2020

Blair, an unarmed civilian, but the evidence did not clearly establish when Officer Austin discharged his firearm. … with Judge Hotten’s opinion is not that it reaches the wrong result, but that the opinion muddies the waters about the issue that is before the Court and how to resolve it. 5 immunity

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

State v. Boone

284 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 16, 1978

The short of it is that the Deputy Sheriff was clearly not conducting an inventory search under a community caretaking function. … We are in full accord with the findings of the Court of Special Appeals: “Mach clearly did not have probable cause to believe the credit cards were incriminating before he seized them.

Whitley v. Maryland State Board of Elections

429 Md. 132 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 23, 2012

Because there is no express requirement that a person other than the signer of the petition serve as a circulator, Respondents assert that the language of the statute permitted clearly and unambiguously the State Board to … To qualify for referendum, not more than half of the required signatures on the petition can be of residents of Baltimore City or of any one county. Md. Const, art. XVI, § 3(a). .

White Automobile Co. v. Dorsey

119 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1913

These witnesses were not qualified to express any opinion upon the subject. … But that doctrine has no application to this case, which falls clearly within the principle announced in McCreary v.

Grimm v. State

458 Md. 602 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 2018

And [Officer Keightley] was certified and qualified as an expert in this area. … An alert does not establish probable cause without reliability.

Rodriguez v. Clarke

400 Md. 39 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2007

an answer or deny only part of the matter ..., the party shall specify so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder.” … Therefore, we upheld the evidence preclusion sanctions applied by the hearing judge as “clearly .... proportionate to the discovery abuse.” Id. at 661 , 870 A.2d at 243 .

State v. Davis

415 Md. 22 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2010

The CSA articulated the requirement for a current and established intent to discharge counsel in Henry v. State, 184 Md.App. 146 , 964 A.2d 678 (2009), cert. granted on other grounds, 408 Md. 487 , 970 A.2d 892 (2009). … We rephrased the question presented because the facts clearly indicate that, at the very least, Davis made an express present request for new counsel to his current attorney.

Parker v. State

365 Md. 299 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2001

The statements, the defendant asserts, did not qualify as excited utterances because the officer had no knowledge of the declarants’ whereabouts at the time of the shooting and could not, therefore, establish that the women … Turning to the personal knowledge requirement, the content of the statements and the surrounding circumstances clearly *316 show that the declarants personally observed the shooting. See State v.

Broadway Services v. Comptroller

478 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2022

The Court of Special Appeals below noted that the Tax Court “should have examined the contracts to determine the nature of the relationship they established[,]” but ultimately concluded that the HSAs appear to establish … In Green, to ascertain the level of control necessary to establish a principal-agent relationship, we used the degree of control required to establish an employer-employee relationship as guidance. 355 Md. at 508.

Katz, Abosch, etc., P.A. v. Parkway Neuroscience

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2023

Cardell qualified as an expert or not. And the court explicitly stated that it was not deciding one way or the other whether Ms. Cardell was, in fact, qualified to render an expert opinion at trial. … Questions of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Armstrong v. Mayor of Baltimore

409 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 2009

To conclude otherwise that the non-governmental party qualifies as a “prevailing” party only if that party obtains an injunction, a declaration of invalidity of the legislative act, or achieves other remedies following establishment … (d) Preexisting lot of record. (1) This subsection does not apply in an Industrial District. (2) On a lot that was established before April 20, 1971, a single-family dwelling may be established regardless of the minimum lot

Wiggins v. State

352 Md. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1999

Korell changed her opinion once prior to the trial, and the defense had ample time to, and did, secure its own qualified expert testimony on this matter. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Wheeler v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2018

by the Maryland Department of Health, the Department of State Police, the Baltimore City Police Department, or any county police department employing analysts of controlled dangerous substances, as qualified … The three closely related sections, read in conjunction with each other, clearly facilitate admissibility (subject to the two exceptions) rather than create some new ground for exclusion.

Wiggins v. State

324 Md. 551 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1991

He claims that this opinion was clearly material and would have produced an acquittal since the outside limit of her range established that the victim was alive after he came into possession of her property. … Korell changed her opinion once prior to the trial, and the defense had ample time to, and did, secure its own qualified expert testimony on this matter.

Caldes v. Elm Street Development

415 Md. 122 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2010

To qualify for a variance to the Critical Area criteria, an applicant must meet each and every one of the variance provisions. See, id., Section 8-1808(d)(4)(ii). … The Board’s comprehensive opinion, from which we have quoted extensively, does not contain any clearly erroneous findings of fact.

Horton v. Horton

158 Md. 626 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1930

She qualified as administratrix, and proceeded to administer the estate. … But clearly there is no such analogy.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Maldonado

463 Md. 11 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 2019

Maldonado contends that she clearly disclosed that she was representing Ms. Duren in a legal matter and that she clearly stated she was an environmental attorney. … Maldonado’s conduct does not qualify as ghostwriting nor does it fall under the scope of Rule 1.2. 5 The hearing judge also found sufficient evidence for a Rule 4.4(a) violation, however, as described earlier, we concluded

Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Department of Labor

360 Md. 387 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2000

An otherwise qualified employee, however, is entitled to benefits if he becomes unemployed through no fault of his or her own. … It is apparent to me that the clause is not clearly unambiguous.

Rowley v. Mayor of Baltimore

305 Md. 456 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1986

Conversely, we see no valid reason why Shelby should be subjected to more liability simply because it engaged the services of a qualified independent contractor. … The negligence of FMI was clearly not “casual” or collateral to the contemplated risk.