Case law

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gallagher

371 Md. 673 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 2002

The Visa Process The hearing court qualified petitioner’s witness, Laurence Johnson, as an expert on immigration matters. Mr. … Suri, established the mutuality of intent for respon *698 dent to create an escrow account by respondent on behalf of Mr. Lobo.

Faulk v. Ewing

371 Md. 284 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 2002

Additionally, the court held that Petitioner's presentation in the District Court did not qualify for a waiver of the notice requirement under § 5-304(c) because Petitioner did not make the required motion and did not show … The Legislature very carefully crafted the provisions that must be met in order that the immunity of a local government would be waived. The majority, as I see it, effectively repeals that portion of the statute.

State v. Snowden

385 Md. 64 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 2005

The Court began by addressing what is “testimony”: “Testimony,” in turn, is typically “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” … Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there' is authority for admitting even those that clearly are.

Davis v. Wicomico Co. Bureau

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 2016

You were clearly – you meaning, both mother and father, were clearly advised, don’t sign if you have a doubt. … The court reasoned that, “the issue of paternity was clearly litigated in the divorce proceeding”, there was a final judgment and Mr.

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.”

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Amber R.

417 Md. 701 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 2011

Following the CINA adjudications, the Children were placed in a foster home, although the court established a permanency plan of parental reunification. … On review of an order to terminate parental rights, this Court uses a clearly erroneous standard when scrutinizing a trial court’s factual findings.

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

Promenade Towers Mutual Housing Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

324 Md. 588 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1991

Martin argued that the Act “has established a new principle. It has made a tender of money, and a refusal to receive, a payment. … The deficiency in this argument is that paragraph four is itself qualified, in that it confirms the Consolidated Note only “as amended hereby.”

New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad v. Peninsula Produce Exchange

122 Md. 215 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1914

S. 657 , the Supreme Court observed that: “The liability imposed by the statute is the liability imposed by the common law upon a common carrier, and may be limited or qualified by special contract with the shipper, provided … If the clause quoted from the bill of lading could be construed as inconsistent with such a liability, it would be clearly ineffectual.

Woodson v. State

325 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 1992

I’m going to object to any statements that this person in this cell may have made to this person, which is clearly outside of the presence of this Defendant. That’s a hearsay statement. … It doesn’t mean that you have to qualify it.

Block v. Mayor of Baltimore

149 Md. 39 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1925

” as well as the specific powers granted to> it by the Legislature-, and that what the reduction company has done it has done- as the city’s agent, and as such is entitled to the same privileges and immunities which the city … That rule and the reasons for it are very clearly stated in Fowble v.

In Re Taylor

312 Md. 58 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 1988

The items must be reasonably necessary to qualify for exemption. … I find that difficult to reconcile with a rule of statutory construction firmly established in this State: Recodification of statutes is presumed to be for the purpose of clarity rather than change of meaning.

Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists

268 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1973

Such a statute is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity; every intendment is in favor of the validity of the statute where there is a * … The schools of cosmetic art are not engaged in the business of selling materials, they are engaged in qualifying students to become practitioners of the art.

Doering v. State

313 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 1988

Although not passing on the issue, the Court suggested that the same mobile home, on blocks and connected to utilities in a mobile home park, wbuld likely qualify for the Fourth Amendment protection afforded a home, because … It bore Virginia license tags. 7 It was located on and at the end of an unpaved, but clearly established, roadway which traversed the B & B yard, and which intersected with Jones Road approximately 100 yards to the west.

Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Construction Company, Inc.

246 Md. 117 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1967

See generally McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, secs. 10.27-10.29, 10.37. (3) (c) The Chancellor Was Not Clearly Erroneous As I view the record in this case, the Chancellor was not clearly erroneous in finding from the evidence … In any event, the Chancellor’s action cannot be said to be clearly erroneous and should be affirmed.

Attorney Grievance v. Sanderson

465 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Miller, because he was not properly qualified as an expert witness. Mr. … Clearly, based on the verbiage alone, Mr. Sanderson in his exchange with Ms.

Montgomery Cnty. v. Cochran & Bowen

471 Md. 186 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2020

we concluded that “[a]n employee must also qualify for compensation and benefits under [LE] § 9-650 and [LE] § 9-660.” … These sections, like LE § 9-505(a) and (b), clearly refer only to noise encountered in the workplace in the employment of the employer.

Santo v. Santo

448 Md. 620 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2016

Such an abuse may also occur when the court’s ruling is “ ‘clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court’ or when the ruling is ‘violative of fact and logic.’ ” Id. … In re Marriage of McSoud, 131 P.3d 1208, 1214 (Colo.App.2006) (“A disagreement regarding routine immunizations for the child was sufficiently severe and prolonged that a court hearing had been scheduled to resolve it....”

Lovell Land, Inc. v. SHA

408 Md. 231 · 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(1)(b) — that "the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give

State v. Matthews

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2022

[The evidence] does have … certainly a qualifier as [defense counsel] correctly points out. … The court acknowledged the “qualifier” that was part of Meline’s testimony, but decided that any flaws in Meline’s conclusions attributable to this qualifier were properly the subject of cross-examination or competing