Case law

Mayor of Forest Heights v. Frank

291 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1981

XI-A, the *350 phrase "public local law” used elsewhere in the Constitution clearly includes a local ordinance enacted by a home rule jurisdiction. See Art. … On the other hand, when the framers of constitutional provisions intended that the term "public local law” be limited to enactments of the General Assembly, they have clearly so qualified the language. See, e.g., Art.

Evans v. State

389 Md. 456 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 2005

concluded, however, that the Paternoster Study did not constitute a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of this Court and that an allegation of error, even of Constitutional dimension, based on that Study, did not qualify … State, 198 Md. 455, 464 , 85 A.2d 43, 47 (1951), and it clearly has done so by providing for those factors to be alleged in a separate Notice.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Williams

148 Md. 289 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1925

The- insolvency vel non of the insured is a fact to be established like any other fact necessary for the plaintiff’s recovery, and when so established concludes the right of the injured party to be paid by tbe insurance company … It was clearly not the intention of the parties to the contract to make such a result possible, and it would be illogical to> place such a construction upon the language employed as would require a judicial determination

Insurance Co. of North America v. Genstar Stone Products Co.

338 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1995

Gens-tar clearly provided “all materials it was requested to provide.” … There the last undisputedly qualifying delivery by the supplier-claimant was made October 31, 1956.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Chanthunya

446 Md. 576 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2016

This Court determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated an MLRPC. See Md. … Thus, the hearing judge did not clearly err.

Wood v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

260 Md. 651 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1971

It meets the criterion of ‘clearly considered dictum as distinguished from mere comment in the nature of obiter,’ and should, we think, be regarded in that light.” 202 F. 2d 359 -360. … A decision which holds that the Maryland Compensation Act is not so exclusive as to prohibit the claimant from pursuing additional compensation benefits in another jurisdiction for which he may qualify does not, in our opinion

Comptroller of the Treasury v. American Cyanamid Co.

240 Md. 491 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1965

This clearly indicates to me that in the Court's opinion the result in Maryland would be quite different. … The statements involved a transaction 18 years ago and however eminent, knowledgeable, *523 and well qualified counsel may be, his statements in appellate argument, not agreed to by opposing counsel, can hardly qualify as

Saunders v. Gilman

Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2025

CJP § 5-103(a)(1) (establishing a twenty-year limitations period for “an action for recovery of possession of . . . land”). … To qualify as a “final judgment,” an order must either “determine and conclude the rights involved” or “deny the appellant the means of further prosecuting or defending [their] rights and interests in the subject matter

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong

326 Md. 107 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1992

This Court has recognized that, in some instances, business records may be excluded if established to be unreliable or untrustworthy. In Marine Bank v. … Instead, Owens-Corning Fiberglas was clearly attempting, in good faith, to separately settle its compensatory damage liability and its punitive damage liability.

Presbyterian University Hospital v. Wilson

337 Md. 541 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1995

The Court of Special Appeals held that, in the present case, the facts did not fit clearly into either the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction. … cause of action, established a basis for jurisdiction.

Maryland Port Administration v. QC Corp.

310 Md. 379 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1987

The trial court sustained a demurrer to the nuisance claim due to QC’s failure to give the notice required under the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. That determination has not been challenged on appeal. … [Footnotes omitted. 8 ] II The Supreme Court considers its cases clearly to have established “that permanent occupations of land by such installations as telegraph and telephone lines, rails, and underground pipes or wires

State v. Borchardt

396 Md. 586 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 2007

State, 352 Md. 580 , 724 A.2d 1 (1999), did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in rejecting Wiggins’ Sixth Amendment claim. … I have been trial counsel in approximately twelve death qualified murder cases in Maryland. I have also been the primary defense counsel in three death qualified Federal cases.

PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY. v. Loyola College

406 Md. 54 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2008

Moreover, photographs clearly depicted the direct and proximate view of the mobile home from the Peters’s home. … The Board found that the project would "clearly exacerbate an already worsening storm water runoff situation” within that community.

Fitzpatrick v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

220 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2001

The Rule was established by the courts to preserve the freedom of alienation, and to prevent restrictions on the circulation of property, i.e., that property would not be extra commercium for too long a duration of time. … In comment d, it qualifies and explains this statement as follows: “Destructibility-Prerequisites as to completeness of power.

In the Matter of the Hon. Mary C. Reese

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2018

IV, § 4A (establishing the Commission of Judicial Disabilities); MD. CONST. art. … And, in my view, their testimony clearly would have been helpful to the Commission. See Md. R. 5-702.

Richardson v. State

381 Md. 348 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 2004

The only advisements the petitioner received that could qualify as meeting the Rule 4-215(a) requirements were neither delivered live nor individually. … We conclude that this record does not reflect, not to mention demonstrate or ensure, clearly, that the petitioner comprehended the rights of which he was presumably informed.

In Re Ryan S.

369 Md. 26 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2002

Notwithstanding the views of the judge in charge of the juvenile court, the petitioner clearly made his objection *48 to the untimeliness of the adjudicatory hearings known to the court. … The Court of Special Appeals glossed over the basis for, and significance of, the petition for writ of habeas corpus by improperly qualifying the petitioner's motion as an objection "solely on the ground that he was being

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lichtenberg

379 Md. 335 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2004

The facts establish that Respondent honestly believed he was complying with all applicable laws and regulations, see ¶ 30, and had disclosed to Mr. … The evidence establishes that Respondent delivered to the client and all applicable third parties all funds due them.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. SYL, Inc.

375 Md. 78 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 2003

(“OSI”), “to facilitate the establishment of its business operations.” … The evidence presented clearly shows that Petitioner is not a phantom or sham corporation.

Clark v. State

364 Md. 611 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2001

Accuracy of memory and recollection, however, are clearly appropriate subjects of cross-examination. … This form of balancing, however, does not go as far as those courts that clearly adopt a balancing test, see supra pp. 632-35.