Case law

DeWolfe v. Richmond

434 Md. 403 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2012

] • • • establishment of the District Court,” and the promulgation of pertinent Rules of Procedure “governing post-arrest and pre-trial procedures.” … Gillespie County, 554 U.S. at 213 , 128 S.Ct. 2578 (emphasis added). 20 The initial appearance before the Commissioner — including the bad hearing that is part of that event — is clearly encompassed within a “criminal proceeding

DuBois v. City of College Park

286 Md. 677 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1980

The class represented by the named plaintiffs was defined as those students at the University of Maryland who were residents of the City of College Park and qualified to vote in all City elections. … Rash, 380 U.S. 89 , the resulting apportionment base offends no constitutional bar, and compliance with the rule established in Reynolds v.

Master Financial, Inc. v. Crowder

409 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 2009

The problem, left unresolved in Greene Tree, is to discern a reasonable standard for determining when a statutory claim would qualify for inclusion in that category. … It is not clear that those cases really represent a departure from the limited scope of the “juridical link" doctrine followed generally, but, to the extent they do, they are clearly distinguishable and do not support the

Hickory Point Partnership v. Anne Arundel County

316 Md. 118 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 1989

Goldsmith, 155 Conn. 175, 183 , 230 A.2d 568, 572 (1967) (“The mere filing of maps for the subdivision of a parcel of real estate does not necessarily immunize the subject property from the operative effect of subsequent … We interpret the argument to mean that the Partnership desires the opportunity to flesh out the record on remand *135 by presenting more clearly to the circuit court the precise points of conflict between whatever plan of

Lancaster v. State

410 Md. 352 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2009

But, the Court qualified the privilege, stating that courts must “balanc[e] the public interest in protecting [this source] of information against the [defendant’s] right to prepare [a] defense.” … See Coleman, supra, 321 Md. at 603 , 583 A.2d at 1052 (applying a clearly erroneous standard to the review of the motion court’s conclusion that “the life of any State witness was in danger once the witness was identified

Ad + Soil, Inc. v. County Commissioners

307 Md. 307 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1986

Indeed, this body of state law clearly contemplates a pervasive and vital role for local legislation in the field of sewage management. … In view of such a clearly established legislative policy, evidence of a countervailing legislative purpose to prohibit local zoning control in the field of sludge utilization must be strong indeed.

Brooks v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers

233 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1964

as we think it reasonable to suppose, a purpose stated in the charter of the Brooks corporation was to conduct the business of funeral director, it is difficult to see how, in the face of Sec. 360 of Art. 43, this could qualify … The Pennsylvania statute was clearly less adapted to the recognized evil than the provision now before us. The Liggett case, on its facts, is not authority for the invalidation of the South Carolina Mortuary Act.”

Smith v. State

481 Md. 368 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2022

Finally, the State contends that Smith failed to create a detailed enough record to establish inherent prejudice. … App. 1994) (“Clearly, the bailiff, in his capacity as attendant to the judge, is an extension of the court.”).

Insurance Co. of North America v. Miller

362 Md. 361 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 2001

receives premiums in the agent’s office, if the employee’s compensation does not vary with the number of applications or amount of premiums; (ii) a regular salaried officer or employee of an insurer who gives help to or for a qualified … H & R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488, 517-19 , 735 A.2d 1039, 1055-56 (1999): The duties an agent owes to his or her principal are well established.

Public Service Commission v. Wilson

389 Md. 27 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2005

This statute states clearly that the termination of a management service employee may be effectuated only by the “appointing authority” of an agency. … A fraudulent entry on a submitted time sheet certainly would qualify, under the examples found in this regulation, as “employee misconduct.” 2.

Schmidt v. Chambers

265 Md. 9 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1972

Both she and Chambers qualified as co-executors under the Will. Indeed on August 2, 1967, at a special meeting of stockholders and directors, Edward R. … Chambers, Jr. as sole trustee of the trust established by the Will of George A. Schmidt.”

Alston v. State

414 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 2010

During the course of the investigation, Easton was granted immunity in return for his cooperation and agreement to testify for the State. … Turning to the present case, the belated administration of the oath to the jurors clearly violated Maryland Rule 4-312(f). Consequently, it constituted error.

Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC

403 Md. 523 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 2008

The various elements of the plan are set out clearly, thus providing an understanding of the context of the plan. … Again we agree that the use of language such as “conform” might be a part of the creation of mandates so long as it is surrounded by other language clearly indicating an intent on the part of the Legislature to establish

Calder v. Levi

168 Md. 260 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1935

The testimony of the osteopathist brought the illness of the plaintiff within the domain of osteopathy, and she was qualified as its practitioner to express an opinion in a matter within her art, and with reference to conditions … A large measure of discretion must necessarily reside in the court, and its exercise will not be reviewed unless it clearly appear that prejudice has resulted from the denial of a legal right.

Baltimore Paint & Chemical Corp. v. Bloom

260 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1970

Gardner informed Company that “(i)t would certainly not be practical, even if possible, to attempt to reduce the benefits which you have already established in the form of your deferred compensation contracts and your qualified … The persistent request for the execution of a release by Bloom and the attempt to exclude Bloom from the State Mutual plan, feeble as it may have been, shows clearly that Company never intended to attempt to partially delegate

Pettiford v. Next Gen. Trust Serv.

467 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 2020

At that point, clearly there was still no agreement between the parties. … Clearly, Pettiford’s position was that the lack of heat excused her from being liable for the rent.

Booth v. State

327 Md. 142 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1992

This ruling was in accord with long-established Maryland law. See Guy v. State, 90 Md. 29, 32-33 , 44 A. 997, 998 (1899). … Booth cites the following statement from the judge’s ruling as an example of his failure to qualify Ms.

Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti

358 Md. 689 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 16, 2000

Thus punitive damages are clearly dependent and can hardly be decided in a vacuum.... ” Id. at 125 , 262 A.2d at 521 (citations omitted). … Nonetheless, that the focus of punitive damages lies upon defendants and their conduct does not change the fact that, as demonstrated from the precedents excerpted above, there is clearly established Maryland law prohibiting

Duffy v. CBS Corp.

458 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2018

The section is drafted in the form of a statute of limitation, but, in reality, it grants immunity from suit in certain instances. … The Court of Special Appeals erroneously relied on the paragraph to create a contradiction in spite of the plain language of the statute, which clearly expressed the legislative intent.

Lawrence v. State

475 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 10, 2021

The first exception allows the Court to “strike down a decision that is[] ‘clearly wrong and contrary to 29 established principles.’” Id. … Although short, the Lee Court’s analysis was not “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” Wallace, 452 Md. at 582 (quoting DRD Pool Serv., Inc., 416 Md. at 64).