Case law

Bowers v. State

283 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1978

It remains to be seen whether the right of a parent to chastise his children by corporal punishment qualifies as a fundamental right for purposes of vagueness analysis. … He argues that the term “cruel or inhumane” is so indefinite as not to comport with established standards of due process. We do not agree.

Vang Construction Co. v. Marcoccia

154 Md. 401 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1928

workman was survived by his mother, who lived in Italy and was his only dependent; (3) that the writer had procured a certain Hick Scarpelli, of Cumberland, Maryland, where the man was living at the time of his death, to qualify … It clearly and necessarily follows that there was no change in the dependent’s position, attributable to any breach of duty on the part of either the insurance carrier or the employer, and there is no estoppel.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stanalonis

445 Md. 129 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 23, 2015

Those findings, as well as undisputed matters in the record, establish the following. The 2012 Primary Election for Circuit Court Judge Mr. … Stanalonis "Not Qualified to be a Judge” when, in selecting among the applicants for appointment to a circuit court position it did not send his name to the Governor.

Calhoun v. State

297 Md. 563 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 1983

We do not go so far as to spell out the exact procedures which must be followed to clearly demonstrate that such statements were made prior to hypnosis. … "THE COURT: No, as the circumstances which the State may establish under Article 27, Section 413(c)3. *597 "MR.

Walker v. State

484 Md. 375 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2023

The Act regulates the collection of DNA samples from certain qualifying arrestees and convicted offenders. PS § 2-504. … Although we agree with the State that Walker has the burden to establish a violation of the Act, we are unable determine whether the DNA sample at issue was: (1) recovered pursuant to a search warrant served on Walker;

McDaniel v. Baranowski

419 Md. 560 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 2011

The issue regarding the appealability of the Motion to Revise Judgment requires only cursory review, because we have previously indicated that a motion to revise judgment “clearly is subject to appellate review.” … Whenever any lessor shall desire to have again and repossess any premises to which he is entitled under the provisions of the preceding section, he or his duly qualified agent or attorney, shall make his written complaint

Fishman v. Murphy

433 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2013

On the other hand, a person otherwise qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value does receive protection in purchasing from one whose title is merely ‘voidable.’ … Judge Jaklitsch, in establishing the constructive trust, did not state, however, whether she found the Urban-to-Street deed void or merely voidable.

Harrison v. State

276 Md. 122 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1975

The better-reasoned cases, as we see them, clearly hold a contrary view. In People v. … It was clearly error.” 80 Iowa at 303 , 45 N.W. at 553.

Moore v. State

412 Md. 635 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2010

Accordingly, as a *655 prerequisite to asking the question, there must be a qualifying witness, one, who, because of occupation or category, may be favored, or disfavored, simply on the basis of that status or affiliation … As to the latter, there clearly has been no such case and the State does not contend otherwise. With regard to the former, that Bowie was not cited by Curtin and Stewart is not dispositive.

Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Moon

118 Md. 380 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1912

In this case we think the learned Judge below committed no error in determining the question of the witness’s qualification, but if he had, it is clearly not a reversible error. … “According to the well established practice, the plaintiff, having the right to begin, must put in the whole of his evidence upon every point or issixe which he opens, and the defendant then puts in evidence his entire case

Swoyer v. Swoyer

157 Md. 18 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 1929

most cases little reason to suppose that one, who before conviction cared so little for his or her children as to commit an offence condemned alike by the moral law and the law of the land, will after conviction he as well qualified … And that view is very clearly expressed in Pangle v.

Frankel v. Deane

480 Md. 682 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2022

Kim’s notes, he qualified that statement by saying that it depended on what the notes said. When pressed, Dr. … Clearly, in a medical malpractice case, the finding of an alleged Rochkind, 471 Md. at 67 n.6, 236 A.3d at 669 n.6 (Watts, J., dissenting).

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Kenney

323 Md. 116 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1991

The presence of the truck created an obstruction to the vision of both drivers, and that was clearly a cause, although perhaps not the sole cause, of the accident. … The defendant has the burden of establishing contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff. Moodie v. Santoni, 292 Md. 582, 586 , 441 A.2d 323 (1982).

Smith v. Towers

69 Md. 77 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1888

A man may direct the disposition of his estate after his death, but this must be done in subjection to the established rules of law. … It cannot be so fenced about by inhibitions and restrictions as to secure to it the inconsistent characteristics of right and enjoyment to the beneficiary, and immunity from his creditors.

Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Kelly

397 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 2007

It appears that the murder charges qualified Kelly for the death penalty. Observing his behavior at a pretrial hearing, the court was concerned as to whether he was competent to stand trial. … In any release decision based on lack of dangerousness, the court’s focus will clearly be—indeed, must be—on dangerousness in the community, not dangerousness in the institutional setting.

In Re: Adoption/guardianship of Rashawn H.

402 Md. 477 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2007

F. was unable to afford an apartment large enough to accommodate her and the children unless (1) she lived with *503 her mother, or (2) she was able to qualify for Government housing assistance and find an apartment either … Given the State’s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence Ms.

Giant of Maryland, Inc. v. State's Attorney

274 Md. 158 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1975

As we read it, the second sentence relates to and qualifies the conduct proscribed in the first sentence and cannot be construed as extending or including other conduct. See Webb v. … We conclude, upon the uncontradicted evidence offered in the trial court that its decision was clearly erroneous and the judgment imposed must be set aside. Maryland Rule 886; Donner v.

Minor v. State

313 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1988

With the battle lines thus clearly drawn, the Supreme Court was confronted with Hutto v. Davis, supra, in which the Rummel majority again prevailed. … In terms of the first criterion established by Helm , the offenses committed by this inept housebreaker were not serious.

Caucus Distributors, Inc. v. Maryland Securities Commissioner

320 Md. 313 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 9, 1990

Caucus is not registered or qualified to transact business in Maryland. … The record before us clearly supports the determination of the Securities Commissioner that there was no First Amendment violation in this case.

Deibler v. State

365 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 2001

The Malouche court reached the same conclusion, determining that the plaintiff in a civil action under the Act was required to establish “an intentional or reckless disregard of its legal obligations” by the defendant. … Criminal agency has been conceded, and Deibler does not directly contest that three calls (or four, if the one leaving his cell phone number is counted) may qualify as “repeated.”