Case law

Myers v. Shipley

140 Md. 380 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 1922

Clifford, 110 Me. 299 , the defendant in that case should have done, and he could not have been held liable on the ground that he had made such qualified statements as it is claimed he did make. *394 We are of the opinion … Roy, 127 Md. 70 , did not establish a contrary rule. It follows that the judgment against Howard E.

Gillespie v. State

147 Md. 45 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1924

demurrer filed to the indictment in that case, this Court, in an opinion in which there was a very exhaustive and elaborate review and discussion of the cases and the principles relating to the question, stated this to be the clearly … 90 , after again, approving the statement of the law of criminal conspiracy in the Budhanan case, the 'Court quoted with approval a passage from 8 Cyc. 664, which to au extent supplemented that statement hut iu no sense qualified

RENAISSANCE CENTRO COLUMBIA, LLC. v. Broida

421 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 19, 2011

Broida lives within sufficient proximity to the Property to qualify for the presumption of special aggrievement. … The stay clearly was not a final administrative decision.

Hill v. Mayor of Colmar Manor

210 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1956

We are of the opinion that the inference which the appellees seek to draw from this is too remote to offset what we think is clearly within the scope of the incorporation by reference provisions of Section 377 which were … We have not gone into any discussion of the effect of the practice of permitting write-in votes which the appellants allege to have long been established, because in our view of the case it is unnecessary to do so.

Grandison v. State

425 Md. 34 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 2012

Our cases establish that the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. Thus, we have rejected suggestions that we establish a right to counsel on discretionary appeals. … There was no finding by that office that Grandison did not qualify for representation because he failed the indigency test.

Smith v. Higinbothom

187 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1946

Consequently it has been customary for the bar association in many cities of the country to urge the election of qualified judicial candidates in the press and by radio. … At common law the tendency of the courts was to apply a strict rule of evidence in cases of corruption, and alleged fraud, bribery, coercion or intimidation was required to be established clearly.

Mahai v. State

474 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 20, 2021

Mahai has failed to demonstrate that CJ § 12-202 clearly violates the Maryland Constitution and thus has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality that is afforded to CJ § 12-202. … The State maintains that the use of the word “intermediate” as a qualifier to both “courts” and “appellate jurisdiction” in Article IV, § 14A was merely a clarifying term to distinguish any new appellate courts from the

Ebb v. State

341 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1996

In response, the prosecutor informed the court: Judge, I can tell you that we have not made any written promises of immunity or anything like that to any witness. … On this culling of the evidence, he found that the elements necessary to establish perfect self-defense had not been established and that the incidents of imperfect self-defense had not been met.

Prince George's County v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

269 Md. 202 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1973

The present case is clearly distinguishable from our recent decision in Prince George’s County, Maryland v. … between the Commission and the County had indeed “accrued” and establish the existence of justiciable controversies.

Heritage Realty, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore

252 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1969

That would be doing great violence, not only to established rules of construction in such cases, but also to the language of the section itself. … Such a result was clearly forecast by our predecessors in Mayor & C. C. of Balto. v.

Johnson v. State

355 Md. 420 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 1999

I’ve been in and out of the Public Defender’s Office and I’ve been trying to make extra money to— [The Court:] Has the public defender ever told you that you didn’t qualify for them on financial grounds? … That has been established in practice but not by rule amendment.

Marchant v. Mayor of Baltimore

146 Md. 513 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1924

There was no> error in the ruling that he was qualified. The statement of which the thirtieth exception complains had been stricken out as the result of an earlier’ objection. … As the jury were actually and clearly advised as to the defendants’ rights in that respect, the refusal of their eighth prayer was not reversible error.

Armacost v. Davis

462 Md. 504 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2019

In accordance with the statute, a certificate of merit by a qualified expert in neurosurgery was attached to the statement of the claim and Mr. … Even without these references, the verbatim recital of MPJI-Cv 27:1 clearly portrays the relevant standard of care applicable in the present case.

Glass v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.

213 Md. 44 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1957

The record establishes beyond question that no part of the income or profits of the hospital inures to the benefit of any individual. … The record also clearly sustains the chancellor’s finding that Dr.

Montgomery County v. REVERE NATIONAL CORP., INC.

341 Md. 366 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1996

Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in Part IV below, we do not agree that the substance of the agreement was clearly ultra vires. IV. A. … Thus, Maryland law has never recognized the defense of governmental immunity in contract actions against counties and municipalities. Board v. Town of Riverdale, 320 Md. 384, 389 , 578 A.2d 207, 210 (1990); Md.

White v. State

374 Md. 232 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 2003

It is the trial judge who must decide whether a prospective juror is qualified to serve or must be discharged for cause. … The majority also points out that the prospective juror, although qualified to do so, was not seated on the jury.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gray

444 Md. 227 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2015

This agreement required the parties to prepare appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (“QDROs”) to effectuate the division of the parties’ retirement benefits. In addition, the agreement required Mr. … Respondent’s conduct in each of the client matters before this Court clearly “erodes public confidence in the legal profession.”

Sullivan v. Mosner

266 Md. 479 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 1972

Sullivan was aware and knew he was supposed to do so and, in fact, did so and, in fact, was qualified to do so.” There was evidence from which the chancellor could find as he did find. … In that instance it was held that it was not established that the husband was the wife’s agent.

Maryland National Bank v. Merson

249 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1968

Eq. 214, 112 A. 317 (1920) the Court expressed what we think is the settlor’s intent in creating a trust which provides for successive beneficiaries, stating: “Clearly when he has created a trust fund and directed that the … reaching this conclusion we are mindful of the fact that the trustee was not required to pay any taxes by way of capital *367 gains on the $162,500 proceeds from the sale of the 1,000' shares from each trust, the remaindermen qualifying

Webster v. Susquehanna Pole Line Co.

112 Md. 416 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1910

Co., 15 Md. 198 , as holding that want of power was a cause to be assigned against confirmation; but *425 Judge Tucic's language in that case shows clearly that it is not susceptible of that construction. … In any such case where the use in fee had been condemned as authorized by the statute, there are not wanting authorities of high character holding that this should be treated as a qualified fee simple determinable when the