Case law

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER FOR THE STATE v. Engelman

345 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 17, 1997

Every Code provision cited by the Commissioner is directed towards ensuring that insurers justify and abide by rates established for the various insurance products offered for sale to the public. … This view is perfectly consistent with our § 230(b), since enforcement of an insurance policy when an agent has refused to accept the policy premium would clearly violate its provisions. 16 .

Bauder v. Blackiston

149 Md. 322 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1925

precise issue of law made by the conflicting contentions of the parties is whether, where, as in this state, a religious ceremony is essential to a valid marriage, that fact may be inferred from habit and repute, where a qualified … Coming to the evidence offered by the appellant, it is clearly insufficient to break down the case, such as it was, made by the appellee.

Kentucky Fried Chicken National Management Co. v. Weathersby

326 Md. 663 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1992

The tort clearly requires “intentional infliction” of emotional distress. … To qualify, the manager must submit a doctor’s statement certifying the manager’s inability to work. The employment manual contains no provision requiring a second opinion for STD payments to accrue.

Campbell v. State

325 Md. 488 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1992

That clearly is not the law. See Buchanan, 5 H. & J. at 346 . Even Garland v. State, the case upon which the petitioner places reliance, is to the contrary. 112 Md. at 86-7 , 75 A. at 633 . … In this case, the jury’s verdict established that the conspiracy had two objects, to possess with the intent to distribute, and to possess, cocaine.

Yoswick v. State

347 Md. 228 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 1997

The colloquy went as follows: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I qualify my client? THE COURT: Please. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: David, first of all, how old are you, sir? YOSWICK: Twenty-five years old—of age. … The record does not reflect any reluctance on Petitioner’s part to plead guilty and he clearly received the benefit of his bargain.

Cromwell v. Jackson

188 Md. 8 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1947

The Act also provides that, before any applicant is given a license, he must establish these qualifications in a judicial proceeding, contested or uncontested. … In Allegany County this legal right must be established in a judicial proceeding.

Ft. Detrick/W. Reed Army Med. Housing v. Wynn

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2026

We hold that the Landlord did not establish that the United States accepted exclusive federal jurisdiction over the Property. … –When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it

Smith v. State

276 Md. 521 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1976

We need not decide that question, however, since what subsequently occured, in our view, clearly tips the balance so as to require a finding that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated. … Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. at 531 , 92 S.Ct. at 2192 , it may be that the additional delay, from January 3 to 23, 1974, caused by the State's principal investigator's military assignment (which might not have qualified him to

Barclay v. Briscoe

427 Md. 270 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2012

In that situation, the "order only will be a valid exercise of the trial court’s discretion if the record clearly demonstrates the existence of any hardship or unfairness sufficient to justify discretionary departure from … the usual rule establishing the time for appeal.”

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Blair

440 Md. 387 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2014

We conduct an independent review of the record and we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance v. Lara, 418 Md. 355, 364, 14 A.3d 650, 656 (2011). … As a result, we accept Judge Greenberg’s findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining an appropriate sanction. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A).

Davidson v. Miller

276 Md. 54 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 18, 1975

The Court was clearly suggesting the distinction in the seriousness of impact on the individual between rules of procedure and rules of conduct. … Maryland are not, then, cases which establish that ‘territorial uniformity is not a constitutional requisite.’ They establish that territorial uniformity is not an absolute constitutional requisite.

Howard County v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

319 Md. 511 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1990

However, the court did find that the Board of Appeals was “clearly erroneous” in imposing its second and third conditions because they conflicted with the PSC’s certificate order. … As noted earlier, allowing counties to require special permits of utility companies even when they qualify for a certificate from the PSC would sanction an authority superi- or to that of the PSC.

Woodlawn Area Citizens Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners

241 Md. 187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1966

Hewes, 118 Md. 624 , 86 A. 233 ), and that no court not coming within its provisions cán be established in this State. … This might have been qualified by adding, so long as it does not conflict with or impinge on Article 4 of the Maryland Constitution.

Sharp v. Howard County

327 Md. 17 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1992

Petitioners also put a hypothetical in which an attorney incorporates a group of investors for the purpose of establishing a radio station. … The wife did not qualify for legal aid representation and the then attorney refused to represent the wife as a private lawyer.

In Re Kaela C.

394 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2006

Thus, the right to file exceptions is a required protective provision of litigants' due process right to have his or her matter heard by a duly qualified judge. … This right, recognized by constitutional principles, common law and statute, is so fundamental that it may not be taken away unless clearly justified." Id. at 112 , 642 A.2d at 208 .

Calvo v. Montgomery Cnty.

459 Md. 315 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 21, 2018

Calvo simply does not qualify as a traveling employee under applicable legal standards. 13  Calvo argues that two of our other cases, Livering v. … Barnes’s trip was clearly in furtherance of the hospital’s business interests, and it was onerous because she came in on her day off. Id.

Attorney Grievance v. Cassilly

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2021

Cassilly clearly engaged in intentionally dishonest conduct on those two occasions as well. … Huffington, his fate was sealed – unless he could establish that the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous. That is a steep hill to climb and I concur in the Court’s conclusion that he did not succeed.

Ware v. State

360 Md. 650 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 14, 2000

Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.... … The exercise of that discretion will not constitute reversible error unless clearly abused and prejudicial to the accused.” Booth v.

In Re Anthony R.

362 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 2000

Chapter 554 of the Laws of Maryland of 1975 (House Bill 483) revised the statutes pertaining to juvenile actions, establishing the Juvenile Causes Act. … It is our duty to interpret the statute in accordance with the established law of this State. Id. at 713-14, 410 A.2d at 591-92 (emphasis added).

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. C.I. Mitchell & Best Co.

303 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 1985

The agency enjoys sovereign immunity. See Katz v. WSSC, 284 Md. 503, 509-12 , 397 A.2d 1027, 1031-32 (1979). … The point seems clearly to have- been presented as an alternative designed to reduce the exposure to refund claims if plaintiffs prevailed on that point.