Case law

Attorney Grievance v. Markey & Hancock

469 Md. 485 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2020

[] Hancock: I clearly am filled with hate. Need to stop. [] Markey: No!! actually keeps it sane here. … These circumstances establish that Markey and Hancock were making remarks that were intentionally offensive.

Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General v. Consumer Publishing Co.

304 Md. 731 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1985

Peco, supra, the Court held that the Board of Pharmacy did not in the case before it qualify as an “aggrieved party” because the statutory function exercised in the case was “quasi-judicial and not adversary” and that the … type; “2) Clearly and conspicuously disclose every part of the program, plan, system or product which must be used or followed in order for the user to achieve significant weight loss; “3) Clearly and conspicuously disclose

Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources

385 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 2005

But he testified that, from his examina *546 tion of the other repair documentation, it could not be established that such repairs had rendered the vessel inoperable. On cross-examination, Mr. … The ALJ heard the evidence, viewed the witnesses, and made a credibility determination; neither the ALJ nor the Secretary was clearly erroneous in disbelieving appellant.

Pritchard v. Myers

174 Md. 66 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1938

The position and claims of the plaintiffs either as depositors and creditors, or as the personal representatives of such depositors and creditors, were established as subsisting on December 18th, 1934, by the reports filed … The rules of equity pleading require that every fact and circumstance necessary to entitle the plaintiff to relief must be clearly and definitely, certainly, and specifically, stated in the bill of complaint.

Giddins v. State

393 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 2006

United States, supra: At the common law, protection from second jeopardy for the same offense clearly included immunity from second prosecution where the court having jurisdiction had acquitted the accused of the offense. … To hold otherwise, the Court noted “would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error.”

Williams v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

307 Md. 606 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1986

If a claimant does not have ‘average weekly wages’ so as to qualify under the formula in § 36 of Article 101, the award shall be in an amount equal to the arithmetic average between the maximum and minimum awards listed in … These pecuniary loss criteria clearly limit the extent to which the Board may make an award where financial need is demonstrated.

In Re Application of G. L. S.

292 Md. 378 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1982

"Clearly, the Applicant’s responses to both questions were incomplete. … Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the applicant did not possess a sufficient degree of candor to qualify for admission to the Bar.

State ex rel. Gaver v. Gaver

115 Md. 250 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1911

Main and others by the Orphans’ Court of Frederick County on the 21st of January, 1903, and that she duly qualified as such guardian; that on the 23rd of March, 1905, she transferred to Joseph W. … The bond in this case, with the evidence in the record, clearly shows it was intended to be sealed, and made a sufficient bond. Its recitals carry conviction that such was the’intent.

Gross v. State

481 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2022

Petitioner asks us to recognize Younie 8 Because the State has not asked us to review the Court of Special Appeals’ determination that the June video did not qualify as a prior consistent statement under … Clearly, the State hoped and intended that the video would contribute to a guilty verdict even though there was other evidence on which the jury could have convicted Mr. Gross.

Grandison v. State

390 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2005

In order to establish a Brady violation, Petitioner must establish “(1) that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence that is (2) favorable to the defense — either because it is exculpatory, provides a basis for mitigation … Had the General Assembly intended to limit the application of the death penalty to participants in contractual murder who qualify as principals under the law, it could have done so.

DiGrazia v. COUNTY EXEC. FOR MONT. CTY.

288 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1980

He seeks reinstatement in his position, together with all the financial benefits of the office, up to the time that his permanent successor, Bernard Crooke, qualified and was confirmed by the County Council, i.e., May 1, … Healthy test, of course, is applicable only if the *449 employee establishes that his conduct was constitutionally protected.

Rasst v. Morris

135 Md. 243 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1919

The value of the Mexican currency was, therefore, clearly not to be fixed as of September, October, November or December, and the testimony was inadmissible. … . ■ We do not find any error in the twentieth, twenty-first, twent-second, twenty-third or twenty-fourth exceptions, as we think those witnesses were shown to be qualified to testify as experts.

Wallace v. State

373 Md. 69 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2003

The graphic and abusive intrusions by the officers in those cases highlight the true concerns of the Supreme Court in its qualifying language mentioned above. … Ultimately, DNA analysis of the blood stains on defendant’s clothing established that the blood belonged to the victim.

Adkins v. State

316 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1989

The parties debated whether Troxell’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment out of the jury’s presence was sufficient to establish his unavailability. … He clearly indicated that he would continue to refuse to testify if recalled before the jury, notwithstanding the earlier finding of contempt.

Crump v. Montgomery

220 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 21, 1959

The Montgomery Board, while it advocated the wisdom of its established policy (not consistently applied) of not considering foster-care parents as eligible to become adoptive parents, concedes that this policy is not binding … Of course, the Chancellors were at liberty in this case to receive reports and recommendations from Welfare Boards and other qualified persons and boards, and to give to those reports and recommendations such reasonable weight

Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance v. Springmann

266 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1972

The Department shall clearly set forth on the application the responsibilities assumed under this section. … Subsection (d) provides that § 122 shall also not apply to persons qualifying as self-insurers.

Richard F. Kline, Inc. v. Grosh

245 Md. 236 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 1967

In any event, the court clearly admonished the jury to disregard any monetary sums in their deliberations. … However, the record firmly establishes the existence of the 5% disability due to pre-existing conditions.

State v. Northern Central Railway Co.

18 Md. 193 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1862

In the latter, all- the cases are summed up, and this conclusion, among others, is1 deduced, “that fraud or imminent danger, if the immediate possession should not be taken by the court,-must be clearly proved.” … The supplemental answer does not anywhere positively and directly qualify the admissions contained in the original answer, but indirectly and argumentatively says, that it hath paid to the State, since the information was

Flynn v. Canton Co.

40 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1874

This however, is no valid reason why the action should not be sustained, if it shall appear to be founded on well established legal principles. … These citations very clearly show the grounds of that decision and the class of cases to which the doctrine of Oouch vs. Steel applies.

Chapman v. Kamara

356 Md. 426 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 1999

Conversely, the court clearly is not bound to vacate a judgment merely because all parties to a suit request that such action be taken. A. … We need not address whether there is such a presumption, because any presumption has been clearly rebutted in this case.