Case law

Garrett v. Kerney

107 Md. 501 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1908

Sullivan qualified as his administrator in the Orphans’ Court of that city. … Clearly from the fact, in addition to the information they had obtained, that the order of publication had notified and warn.ed all persons entitled to distribution "to appear in person, or by guardian, solicitor or agent

McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC

415 Md. 145 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2010

Clearly, Wagner’s and DCW’s misconduct pre-dated the effective date of the amendment. … That is less than 20 acres and otherwise qualifies as an intensely developed area under paragraph (13) of this subsection. § 8-1802(a)(15)(ii).

Drury v. State

368 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 2002

State, 346 Md. 80 , 695 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 989 , 118 S.Ct. 459 , 139 L.Ed.2d 393 (1997), recognized that not all questions proffered to a suspect during the booking process are so immunized and suggested that … Because we fine Vines distinguishable, it matters not that the qualifying language of Innis was not a consideration.

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.

Wadsworth v. Sharma

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2022

This Court may abandon the doctrine of stare decisis when the decision is “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or where there is “a showing that the precedent has been superseded by significant changes … This Court’s decisions in Weimer and Fennell are not “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” nor has there been “a showing that the precedent has been superseded by significant changes in the law or facts

State v. Rucker

374 Md. 199 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 2003

He was summonsed to the scene to go ahead and make a stop.... 1 use the word stop because clearly that’s what happened; he confronted Mr. Rucker as Mr. … Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Supreme Court established that police may conduct brief investigatory stops, if'“there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is involved in

Anderson v. State

372 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2002

It is uncontested that the act of sexual intercourse by an adult with a fourteen-year-old girl qualifies as “abuse” under the statute. … The officer clearly had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner had committed child abuse. 4 His recording was lawful and the motion to suppress properly was denied. *299 IV.

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.

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.

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.

State v. Broberg

342 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 1996

Because the majority’s decision flatly violates a long established and consistently applied limitation upon this Court’s exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, I dissent. … the issue of whether the photographs were admissible because they allowed the jury to become acquainted with the homicide victim in the same way that the jury is acquainted with a *570 victim in a non-homicide case, are clearly

Western Md. Rwy. Co. v. Tax Comm.

195 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 1950

They claim that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States grants immunity to that portion of the gross receipts. … As a decision under the Import-Export Clause the Richfield case is not qualified, but reaffirmed, by the Joseph case.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lytle

374 Md. 37 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2003

10-304(a)(3) and (b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code require tests to be administered with “equipment approved by the toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission” and by a “qualified … When the language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute and the result is not absurd, we have held that no further inquiry into legislative intent is required.

Wynne v. Comptroller of Md.

469 Md. 62 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2020

In such a case, the law will violate the dormant Commerce Clause only if the burden on interstate commerce “is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike v. … there is no distinction to be made between the rate of interest on a tax refund and the underlying tax itself because, as they see it, “[t]he dormant Commerce Clause applies to all government action,” although they later qualify

Avirett v. State

76 Md. 510 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1893

Lawrence, 11 Ad. & El., 920, established the same rule in civil cases. … The decision in Gibson’s Appeal relies upon no other adjudged case, and is clearly wrong upon principle.

Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc.

304 Md. 124 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 1985

Lusby, 283 Md. 334 , 390 A.2d 77 (1978) (refusing to recognize interspousal immunity with regard to outrageous intentional torts); Harris v. … There is, however, a limited category of handguns which clearly is not sanctioned as a matter of public policy.

Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Maher

480 Md. 394 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2022

Under these definitions, residential tenants who lease real property qualify for protection under the MCPA. See Golt v. … under a private right of action established by the General Assembly.

Abuc Trading & Sales Corp. v. Jennings

151 Md. 392 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1926

That distinction is clearly and we think accurately stated in 31 Cyc. 1219. … In connection with that question the appellee, who was qualified to answer the question, was asked to state the difference between brass and copper.

Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Harris-Smith

356 Md. 72 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 21, 1999

The Supreme Court of Florida enjoined Sperry from engaging in the practice of law, including specific prohibitions against rendering legal opinions as to patentability and infringement, and against holding himself out as qualified … Relative to the remaining charges that have been established, the most serious among them is the use of the professional card that did not disclose the limitation on Smith’s practice.

Bellamy v. State

403 Md. 308 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 2008

First, “the district court must be satisfied that the prior argument involves an assertion of fact [clearly] inconsistent with similar assertions in a subsequent trial.” … The assertion that Welch shot Carter is clearly inconsistent with the State’s later assertion that Bellamy shot Carter twice.