Case law

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.

Monarch Acad. Balt. Campus, Inc. v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs

457 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2017

, oversight, and accountability standards for charter schools once they are established.” … statute replete with policy determinations, did not use the words “primary jurisdiction,” and the case’s only discussion about primary jurisdiction came after the Koba court found in favor of the local board on sovereign immunity

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.

Cicoria v. State

332 Md. 21 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1993

“[A]s a condition precedent to qualifying as candidate, [each candidate for election to public office] shall appoint one campaign trea *34 surer,” art. 33, § 26-3(a)(l)(i), who, along with the candidate, “shall file campaign … Only if the legislative intent, clearly expressed, is that one supersedes, or precludes prosecution under, the other will one statute be given preemptive effect.

State v. Jones

466 Md. 142 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2019

Applying the clearly erroneous standard in that case, we held that the juvenile court “was not clearly erroneous in finding that [the two individuals] were not -3- accomplices … Ordinarily this Court may strike down a decision that is, “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles [ ]”1, Thompson v. UBS Fin.

Garfinkel v. Schwartzman

253 Md. 710 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1969

However, to qualify that, you cannot determine that the development costs were going to be; yes I discussed it with both, the feasibility of the development. “O. … Garfinkel and Sampson “were real estate brokers, duly qualified and licensed to sell real estate in the State of Maryland”.

Plummer v. Livesay

185 Md. 450 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 1945

In the long line of cases establishing this rule, perhaps the best statement of it is to be found in the case of Johnston v. Schmidt, 158 Md. 555 , 149 A. 283 . … This was clearly erroneous. Other than that from these three witnesses, the only testimony bearing on the mental capacity of the testator was that given by Osborn Ray Livesay, the son.

Bishop v. State

341 Md. 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 22, 1996

This time all jurors answered in the affirmative, without adding qualifying words of any kind. … He clearly has reservations and I think it is inappropriate to enroll this verdict.

120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore City

413 Md. 309 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 2010

The court found that “the statutory language in the Baltimore City Code, Baltimore City Charter, and Maryland Constitution clearly grants plenary authority to the City to dispose of the property for development or redevelopment … Moreover, the ordinance charged the BDC with specific tasks and established protocols for the proposal evaluation process.

Aleman v. State

469 Md. 397 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2020

As a congressionally-sanctioned compact, the IAD falls within Article I, §10, cl. 3 of the United States Constitution and thus qualifies as a federal law.4 Id. … Aleman’s mental illness—clearly established at the time of the crime—continues through and beyond the not criminally responsible verdict.

Green v. N.B.S., Inc.

409 Md. 528 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 2009

Cline, 384 Md. 245 , 863 A.2d 297 (2004), in which this Court was presented with the issue of whether State personnel have immunity from liability for tortious acts or omissions that violate State constitutional rights. … by specific words; (2) the members of the enumeration suggest a class; (3) the class is not exhausted by the enumeration; (4) a general reference supplementing the enumeration, usually following it; and (5) there is not clearly

Glens Falls Insurance v. American Oil Co.

254 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1969

Was the evidence before the trial court sufficient to establish coverage under the policy to pay for property damage caused by the insured’s negligence? … expected * * *.’ ” In reversing the trial court’s judgment against the insurer in that case, we recognized that there was a distinction between “caused by accident” and an intentional act, the consequences of which were clearly

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

34 Md. 344 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1871

existing and established conveyances.” … This immunity belongs to the State by reason of her prerogative as a sovereign, and on grounds of public policy.

Yorke v. State

315 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1989

Testimony from three highly qualified experts on DNA Fingerprinting was received at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. … Yorke’s trial counsel that further testing has established that the victim was the sole source of the DNA material recovered from her after the rape.

Finucan v. Maryland Board of Physician Quality Assurance

380 Md. 577 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2004

Muncie, was asked how long ago the prohibition on patient-physician sex was established. … The Yero court agreed with the administrative hearing officer’s findings that “the evidence failed to establish that Dr.

Berkey v. Delia

287 Md. 302 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1980

clearly, with small possibility of error left.” … Hambleton & Co., 98 Md. 12 , 55 A. 431 (1903), was an equity action to establish a lien on certain shares of stock pursuant to a parol agreement.

Wynn v. State

351 Md. 307 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1998

The State also asserted that the other crimes evidence established identity. … This was recognized clearly by the trial judge, and was his basis for admitting the evidence.

Leung v. Nunes

354 Md. 217 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1999

Each Maryland corporation must have at least one resident agent, but so must any foreign corporation which has registered or qualified to do business in this State. … There was a total lack of proof from which the court could weigh relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial or from which it could find that the balance was clearly in favor of the defendant.

Wilson v. State

284 Md. 664 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1979

The Office of Public Defender was established in the executive branch of the government. Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.) art. 27A, § 3. … In any event, however, the rule relied upon by the Court of Special Appeals to support its holding clearly does not apply to post conviction proceedings.

Little v. State

300 Md. 485 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1984

Clearly the State has a compelling interest in controlling drunk driving. … Section 4(a) states: "The Superintendent, the deputy superintendent, and employees designated by the Superintendent as police employees shall have throughout the State the same powers, privileges, immunities, and *512 defenses