Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersmd

3,417 results

1.31s

  • Lovell Land, Inc. v. State Highway Administration

    408 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2009

    Under that view, Lovell clearly would not qualify as a creditor beneficiary. … To achieve third-party beneficiary status under the Restatement (Second) approach, Lovell would need to establish the criterion set forth in § 302(l)(b) — that “the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Bartlett v. Ligon

    135 Md. 620 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1920

    W e pointed out that by the language “shall become” the Act used a term which “in its common and ordinary usage, unless accompanied by qualifying words which show a con *629 trary intent, always refers to the future.” 35 … But in this case it was clearly shown that the testatrix did *631 become insane after the will was executed and before the death of the legatee, and she was duly adjudged insane without lucid intervals, as shown above.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Seemuller v. Fuchs

    64 Md. 217 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 1885

    . *222 He qualifies by obtaining a license for a fee to tbe State, and by giving bond, conditioned for the payment of the duties prescribed by law upon his sales, “ and that he will in all things well, truly and faithfully … And upon these facts I am clearly of opinion that there was no implied warranty of title by the defendants.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Bean v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

    406 Md. 419 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 2008

    After qualifying as an expert in forensic psychiatry, Dr. … Particularly this is true when the disability develops coincidentally with, or within a reasonable time after, the negligent act, or where the causal connection is clearly apparent from the illness itself and the circumstances

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Matter of Easton, Incompetent

    214 Md. 176 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1957

    Doyle was appointed trustee, and, after duly qualifying, thence proceeded to administer the estate. … Is the establishment of a judicial method of determining a person to be incompetent by reason of mental disability, non compos mentis, or a lunatic, a legislative function? II.

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Honaker v. W. C. & A. N. Miller Development Co.

    285 Md. 216 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1979

    Each has been held to be a statutory employer under Maryland Code (1957) Art. 101 (the Workmen’s Compensation Act), § 62 and thus immune from *219 any liability other than that for workmen’s compensation. … We said, at 480, 101 A. 2d at 823 : “We find no such limitation in the language or purpose of [§ 62] and the last paragraph dealing with the interpleading of intermediate contractors when a claim is filed, is clearly predicated

    Cited 59 timesPublished
  • Wilson v. Board of County Commissioners

    273 Md. 30 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1974

    Therefore, we prefer to consider this matter assuming, but without deciding, that it is necessary that a public purpose be established. D. … His finding of fact was not clearly erroneous. Since there was no limitation of law applicable, that finding must stand. Rule 886. Decree affirmed; appellants to pay the costs. 1 .

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Wight v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

    146 Md. 66 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1924

    These principles are in accord with the general trend of judicial authority and may he regarded as established. … While it is properly spoken of as fundamental and inalienable, it is nevertheless qualified to the extent that the sovereign power may interfere with its enjoyment through regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Medstar Health v. Maryland Health Care Commission

    391 Md. 427 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2006

    Nor does it insulate the CON application review process from critical review or the formula triggering CON review immune from challenge. … The Commission clearly ignores the actual evidence that the need for cardiac services in the region is declining.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • In Re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. T00130003 and T00130004

    370 Md. 250 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2002

    Certainly, the kind of problem postulated-by the Public Defender in that case — a true physical inability to file a timely objection — would qualify. … The deadline for objecting established both by the Legislature and by us through implementing rules, is not an arbitrary one.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Brown v. Coleman

    318 Md. 56 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1989

    David Coleman was the owner of Data Video Concepts, Inc., a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Maryland, trading under the name of Computer Concepts. … This argument is clearly without merit. The Commissioner bore the burden of tracing funds from the defrauded investors to the assets collected and sold by the receiver. Drovers’ Bank v.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Frase v. Barnhart

    379 Md. 100 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

    Though clearly suspicious of whether Ms. … The November 1 order clearly did not constitute a final judgment under CJP § 12-301, and, as Ms. Frase does not contend that it qualifies as final under the collateral order doctrine, we need not consider that prospect.

    Cited 35 timesPublished
  • State v. Werner

    302 Md. 550 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1985

    that proof of one tends to establish the other, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of a crime on trial. … This aspect of the Parker case was later modified, and if the complaint qualifies as a recent one, the prosecution may also present evidence of the surrounding circumstances. Green v.

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Garay v. Overholtzer

    332 Md. 339 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1993

    It is well established, however, that a minor is liable for the value of necessaries furnished to him or her. Monumental Bldg. Ass’n v. … Since Hudson , the doctrine of interspousal immunity has been abrogated in cases sounding in negligence. See Boblitz v. Boblitz, 296 Md. 242 , 462 A.2d 506 (1983). 6 .

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Frazier v. McCarron

    466 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 20, 2019

    The project, coincidentally, was qualifying the signatures on the proposed Charter amendment. Four of the five members of the Council participated in the closed meeting, one by telephone. Mr. … As noted, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that that finding was clearly erroneous, and we agree with that conclusion.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc. v. Partlow

    460 Md. 607 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 13, 2018

    Farfel, both the testing for lead-based paint and lead dust qualified the Property for the R&M Study, and the Property was deemed structurally sound. … The factor of moral blameworthiness weighs in favor of establishing a duty.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • State v. Westpoint

    404 Md. 455 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 2008

    This third step is clearly a matter of trial court discretion. Id. at 213-14 , 642 A.2d at 874 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted). … The prejudice resulting from such a procedure clearly would outweigh whatever minute probative value the conviction had.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson

    399 Md. 314 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 23, 2007

    That — those techniques, though they may be established for other causes, have been modified for Dr. Shoemaker’s purposes and, therefore, they should be under the Frye-Reed evaluation. … wide latitude in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence, and his sound discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision to admit the expert testimony was clearly

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Prince George's County v. Aluisi

    354 Md. 422 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1999

    Providing security for the courts is clearly a common law duty of the sheriffs if required by the courts. This Court in Green v. … ] those things having to do with carrying on the business for which it is built or established.” People ex rel. Reynolds v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 300 Ill. 415, 417 , 133 N.E. 250, 251 (1921).

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Cunningham v. Feinberg

    441 Md. 310 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2015

    Appellate courts “ ‘accept and [are] bound by findings of fact in the lower court unless they are clearly erroneous.’ ” State Sec. Check Cashing, Inc. v. … All employers operating a business shall establish regular pay periods and rates of pay for employees except executive personnel.

    Cited 122 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.