Case law

Pullman Co. v. Ray

201 Md. 268 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1953

Having clearly pointed out the road to be travelled by a legal vehicle factually equipped to use it, the Court, in the instant case, when confronted with such a vehicle, refuses it access to the road previously clearly marked … I have no doubt that if Ray was qualified to perform the work he did perform for twenty-five years, the last four as stock keeper, he was qualified to perform work the company had available, or could have made available,

Daly v. Morgan

1 L.R.A. 757 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 23, 1888

This is clearly shown by express decisions. In Crane vs. … Can this contention be sustained upon any principle-of established law ? I am clearly of opinion it cannot..

Wright v. Rogers

9 G. & J. 181 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1837

Tilghman, the appellant acquired no right to freedom, either of a qualified or absolute character which could be enforced in law or equity. … court, and' if the opposing right of her master could without question have been enforced in all, does it not follow, that the act of 1834, which professes to give validity to a void deed upon its being recorded, proves as clearly

Stebbing v. State

299 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1984

In Myers the trial judge sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment after finding as mitigating circumstances the fact that one of Myers’s co-defendants was given a life sentence and the other was granted immunity from … The majority disposes of this issue by citing the general rule that, in order to establish a felonious taking, it is not necessary that the taker gain pecuniary advantage. Canton Bank v. Am.

Western Maryland Railway Co. v. Shatzer

142 Md. 274 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1923

Co., 119 Md. 481, 483 , Judge Ubheb said: “The averments for each count of the declaration clearly place the plaintiff in the position of a gratuitous passenger at the time of the injury for which he sues. … Justice Hughes said: “It is the established doctrine of this Oourt that common carriers cannot secure immunity from liability for their negligence by any sort of stipulation,” citing 17 Wall. 357 and other eases.

Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc.

384 Md. 329 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 2004

In order to receive the money, each individual plaintiff would have to establish that he/she met the criteria for payment, agree to the settlement amount, and execute a release. … The issue here is whether, by virtue of the Rooney letter, the arbitration agreement that clearly covered this dispute continues to apply.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hall

408 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 2009

The fact that no general rule exists, however, does not mean that such relationships should be pursued or are immune to sanctions. … We, however, do not conclude that this characterization by the judge is clearly erroneous. 16 .

Oursler v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

60 Md. 358 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 1883

The language employed shows very clearly, that perfect drainage was not contemplated or provided for; but only such drainage as could be effected with due regard to the necessities and safety of the road-bed and the structures … What we have said respecting the rights acquired by the appellee under the deed to protect itself from the river, by constructing a trestle at the western point, and its qualified duty respecting the drainage of the old bed

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C.

417 Md. 90 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 22, 2010

Namely, [w]hen the appellate court scrutinizes factual findings, the clearly erroneous standard of [Rule 8-131(e) ] applies. … Instead, we continued, in the very next sentence: ...” and we proceeded to describe the qualifying language from Hoffman.

Somerville v. Brown

5 Gill 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1847

It does him no wrong; it deprives him of no right; it but qualifies the favors which the law confers upon him. … This is all that was established by the case of Stewart vs. West, as stated by the reporter in his synopsis thereof.

Gordon v. Mayor of Baltimore

258 Md. 682 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1970

Robert Metzdorf, a qualified appraiser, came to Baltimore and spent 58 days examining the collection. … Peabody could be litigated; and the record clearly shows that both institutions recognize the Grantor’s wishes and the terms of his Trust and wish to respect them.

Metal Distributing Co. v. Solar Heating & Air Conditioning Corp.

263 Md. 663 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1971

Although it cannot be established from the record before us, Metal Distributing says that goods belonging to Solar were attached. … Clearly, the action of the Prince George’s County Court in quashing the writ was not res judicata, since an attachment is an action in rem, and such an adjudication is only determinative of the status of the res over which

Carter v. Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust

439 Md. 333 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 2014

W & G was a Baltimore-based insulation and roofing contractor that was established in 1881. … But, you know, I guess, the witness can say what he says if he is qualified to say it.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barton

442 Md. 91 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2015

Respondent initially challenges the use of the deemed admissions to establish the violations of the Rules alleged. … , the party shall specify so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Georg

456 Md. 616 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2017

And that’s clearly not the case based on the evidence that has been presented. They are not the home loan holder. … [Petitioner]s, in response, contend that Judge Alexander’s Order qualifies as a contingent ruling and cannot serve as a basis for res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Washington Homes, Inc. v. Interstate Land Development Co.

281 Md. 712 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1978

“In determining liability under the contract the arbitrators would clearly have the power to determine if there would, in fact, be any liability. … This has been done and Washington Homes has refused settlement and has contested the certification; “Interstate contends that Washington Homes can not contest the certification of the agreed upon and qualified third party

Tabler v. Castle

12 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1858

he is advised that if, under the circumstances, the decree of the 20th of August 1854, is permitted to stand unreseinded, and the enrollment unopened, by the tenor and effect of said decree, the complainant therein has established … Ebbeps, a duly qualified deputy of the sheriff, by distinctly reading the summons to the said petitioner, and thereby informing him of the contents, and object, and command thereof, us will appear from an affidavit of the

State v. Lancaster

332 Md. 385 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1993

The State in this case was required to establish, and did establish, that this was precisely the conduct in which the defendant had engaged. Moreover, § 554 is obviously a multipurpose statute. … The offense can be established either by showing” one type of proscribed conduct or the other).

Baltimore Lutheran High School Ass'n v. Employment Security Administration

302 Md. 649 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1985

subparagraph C who performed services for the School were exempt from unemployment insurance coverage. 3 But the Executive Director also determined that those persons who performed services for the School, other than those qualified … Lutheran also invokes the First Amendment prohibition against a “law respecting an establishment of religion____” For a statute to prevail when scrutinized under the establishment clause it must (1) have a secular purpose

Howeth v. Coulbourne Bros.

115 Md. 107 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1911

The testimony offered here to establish insolvency falls far short of what should be required, and the learned Judge of the Circuit Court was correct in refusing to grant that relief. 2. … the business, and not only declined to do so but removed him as director and elected his son who had but one hundred dollars in the business, and his personal attorney, to whom he assigned one share of stock in order to qualify