Case law

Comprehensive Accounting Service Co. v. Maryland State Board of Public Accountancy

284 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 1979

It claims a nationwide network of 150 authorized franchisees, staffed by qualified, graduate accountants who service 15,000 clients throughout the country. … While these exceptions purport to be confined to “bookkeeping and tax services,” the specifically delineated functions, as the Board admits, clearly encompass some accounting services, i.e., “devising and installing systems

Bethesda African Cemetery Coal. v. Housing Opp. Comm.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2024

Additionally, “unless a legal right and a corresponding duty are clearly established, there is no ground for the issuance of a mandamus.” Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 288 (1940); see also Balt. Cnty. v. Balt. Cnty. … This clearly undermines the important interests that the statute was designed to protect.

Baltimore City Police Department v. Andrew

318 Md. 3 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1989

One set of these provisions, enacted by Chapter 889 of the Acts of 1975, establishes the Complaint Evaluation Board (CEB) in Baltimore City. … In other words, when a qualified complainant files a sworn brutality complaint within the 90-day period, the police agency has a duty to proceed with an investigation.

Sachs v. LITTLE, OF ESTATE OF LITTLE

245 Md. 343 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1967

The lay witness must not only have an ample opportunity to observe the testator but the facts relied on by the lay witness must be sufficient to establish a lack of testamentary capacity. Plummer v. … He did not want visitors and clearly did not want suggestions in regard to how he should bequeath his property.

Rohrer v. Humane Society of Washington County

454 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2017

The fact findings of the trial court are not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. … Rohrer does not argue that the District Court’s findings in this regard were clearly erroneous. However, Mr.

Mayor of Baltimore City v. Valsamaki

397 Md. 222 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 2007

These improper, potential considerations dictate that the entity attempting to utilize this process, clearly assert the specific immediacy of the need. … When that court, as has this court in many cases, noted that a condemnor had a burden of establishing "a prima facie case of the necessity,” it indicated, as dicta, that it also had the requirement of establishing immediacy

Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2024

Usan characterizes the above exchange as establishing that the State Police did not legally have capacity to conduct a drug test because a DRE was not available. … TFC Greathouse clearly referred to giving Mr. Usan his “advice of” rights. -6-  At the administrative hearing, Mr.

Greenbelt Homes, Inc. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PR. GEORGE'S CTY.

248 Md. 350 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1968

School Comm'rs, 51 Md. 401, 404-05 , the Court said: `If the proposed act in establishing the high school be within the scope of the authority delegated, as it clearly is, it is not competent to [ sic ] a court of equity … It can be reasonably inferred that these official planning bodies, with their qualified staffs, duly and properly made a study of the two competing locations and properly concluded that as a matter of proper planning and

Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2024

Usan characterizes the above exchange as establishing that the State Police did not legally have capacity to conduct a drug test because a DRE was not available. … TFC Greathouse clearly referred to giving Mr. Usan his “advice of” rights. -6-  At the administrative hearing, Mr.

Walter v. Gunter

367 Md. 386 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 2002

Clearly, the amendment of § 5-1038(a) was meant to overturn the result in that case. … See 2 id. § 41.06, at 380 ("A vested right has been equated with `property' in order to qualify it for protection from arbitrary interference."); cf. Washington Nat'l Arena Ltd.

Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2024

Usan characterizes the above exchange as establishing that the State Police did not legally have capacity to conduct a drug test because a DRE was not available. … TFC Greathouse clearly referred to giving Mr. Usan his “advice of” rights. -6-  At the administrative hearing, Mr.

Monarch Academy v. Bd. of School Comm'rs.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2017

, oversight, and accountability standards for charter schools once they are established.” … statute replete with policy determinations, did not use the words “primary jurisdiction,” and the case’s only discussion about primary jurisdiction came after the Koba court found in favor of the local board on sovereign immunity

Attorney Grievance v. Malone

482 Md. 82 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2022

except as to mitigation, based on the exhibits admitted into evidence, the hearing judge’s findings that Collins’s “statements were false when made and she knew they were false when made[,]” are not clearly … The misconduct established in Brown and Thompson, and, in Collins as well, pales in comparison to that of Malone.

Gilmer v. State

389 Md. 656 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2005

The term “dismissal” in Section 6-218(b)(2), therefore, absent qualifying language of with or without prejudice, reason *669 ably can be interpreted in either of two ways: one in which the unrelated offense may not be re-prosecuted … Vol.), Art. 27, § 616S(e) (emphasis added). 15 Therefore, in 2001, when Section 6-218(b)(2) was recodified, the General Assembly clearly knew the distinction between with and without prejudice and could have drawn that distinction

Legislative Redistricting Cases

331 Md. 574 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 2006

The Supreme Court “clearly established that the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, economic status, … No less rigid an examination is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to citizens who are otherwise qualified by residence and age....

Duckett v. Riley

428 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2012

“Clearly, the civil information report is not a pleading as defined by the rules. The question is whether it qualifies as a writing as a separate paper. … Moreover, “When construing ... rules, we must bear in mind that they are ‘precise rubrics,’ established to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice, and thus are to be strictly followed.”

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harmon

435 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 21, 2013

We cannot say that the hearing judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous; those findings, though summary in nature, lead inexorably to the conclusion that Mr. … This Court has held that evidence of repeated failures to respond to Bar Counsel’s investigative requests can establish a violation of Rule 8.1. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. TKU Associates

281 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1977

It reversed the Council’s resolution granting the sectional map amendment, thus restoring the C-2 zoning classification of Woodies’ property and qualifying it for issuance of the sewer permit under the terms of Judge Mathias … While our review of the evidence indicates that Judge Mathias was not clearly in error in so holding, it is manifest that his decree of December 18,1974 cannot be implemented by issuance of a sewer permit consistent with

In the Matter of Judge Russell

464 Md. 390 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2019

“[T]here is a strong presumption in Maryland . . . that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified … Rule 4-601 does not establish a deadline or time period for when a judge must file a warrant with the clerk’s office. See generally, Md. Rule 4-601.

Messall v. Suburban Trust Co.

244 Md. 502 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1966

The trial court's action in the instant case was not inequitable under the rules the cases have established. … The doctrine of law which they establish is, as I see it, inconsistent with the holding in Franklin Bank .