Case law

Newman v. State

384 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

, unless by the consent of the client for whose protection the rule was established.'" … Ashley's testimony was clearly not protected by any attorney-client privilege.

Williams v. State

394 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 2006

The information that question sough) to elicit was clearly not so prejudicial as a direct family relationship to a member of the State would be. … A direct family relationship to an employee of the State's Attor *116 ney's Office certainly qualifies as a reason that may affect a juror's impartiality and, thus, the fairness of the trial. .

Tichnell v. State

297 Md. 432 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1983

The sentencing jury found that all three aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State had been established. … The evidence in the case clearly indicated that Recek was not a first degree principal in the deputy’s murder. .

Forster v. State

426 Md. 565 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2012

The General Assembly established the Office, a semi-autonomous agency within the Executive Branch of State government, in 1971. See 1971 Md. … The opinion concluded that Forster’s “allegations do not raise even the spectre of a violation of law such as denying legal representation to any individual qualified for [the Office’s] services.”

Seaborne-Worsley v. Mintiens

458 Md. 555 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 2018

The trial court’s factual findings are accepted unless clearly erroneous. Id. The appellate court affords no 7 deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. … Boblitz, 296 Md. 242 (1983) (abrogating common law doctrine of interspousal immunity and reversing trial court decision in automobile tort case based on that doctrine); Pearson v.

State v. Collins

296 Md. 670 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1983

This professional should also be able to qualify as an expert in order to aid the court in evaluating the procedures followed. … It might be harder to establish that he was sufficiently independent of the prosecution or defense to avoid subconscious bias.

New York Bronze Powder Co. v. Benjamin Acquisition Corp.

351 Md. 8 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 1998

Can you establish foundation as to the location of the original? Q. [Counsel for New York Bronze]: Do you have the original note? A. No, I don’t. Q. Have you sold the original note? A. No, I have not. *13 Q. … Vineyard, Inc., [ 61 N.Y.2d 106 , 472 N.Y.S.2d 592 ] 460 N.E.2d 1077, 1081-82 (N.Y.1984).[ 2 ] The language in § 4.2 of the note clearly fits that definition.

Matter of Trader

272 Md. 364 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1974

The State can establish any system of laws it sees fit for all or any part of its territory, provided that it does not encroach on the jurisdiction of the United States, and does not abridge the privileges and immunities … We affirmed the convictions, finding that the legislative plan dealing with Sunday observance and "Sabbath Breaking" was plain; that it was not clearly arbitrary or oppressively discriminatory; and that consequently the legislative

Cooksey v. State

359 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2000

By limiting what may be charged even in separate counts of a single charging document, the Rule rather clearly precludes the charging of separate offenses in a single count. See Ayre v. … That abuse can as easily arise from several qualifying acts as from one. As we pointed out in *24 Nightingale v.

Crispino v. State

417 Md. 31 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 2010

context about which Shannon J. testified, further, the act of French kissing a minor on one occasion for “ten minutes,” and in another for “ten to [fifteen] minutes,” while Crispino, an adult, was on top of her in bed, was clearly … That abuse can as easily arise from several qualifying acts as from one.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kirwan

450 Md. 447 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2016

Therefore, we treat the hearing judge’s fact findings as established. Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A). Those findings are summarized as follows. Law Practice Ms. … A lawyer clearly violates 10 MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries with respect to a disciplinary matter investigation.

Belote v. State

411 Md. 104 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 2009

Indeed, “[o]n one end of the spectrum, it seems apparent that detention accompanied by handcuffing, drawn guns or words to the effect that one is under arrest qualifies as an ‘arrest’ and thus requires probable cause. … The standards established in Bouldin [v.

Langston v. Langston

366 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 2001

The circuit court determined that Arthur’s pension payments qualified as “income” under the definition of that term as provided in the parties’ separation agreement and that Arthur must continue to pay a modified amount of … As demonstrated through the plain terms of Section 12 — 104(b), when the legislature intends to impose conditions upon modification of support awards, it expresses its intention clearly and concisely within the chosen statutory

Riemer v. Columbia Medical Plan, Inc.

358 Md. 222 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 2000

Title 12 of the State Government Article concerns state immunity and liability. … Title 20 of the Insurance Article establishes the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund.

Colvin-El v. State

332 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 1993

From this the dissent pronounces the evidence legally insufficient to establish that Colvin-el was a principal in the first degree. … Clearly there was no factual dispute about the robbery.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Keister

327 Md. 56 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 1992

When the respondent did not respond timely, the matters as to which admissions were sought were “deemed admitted”, Rule 2-424(b) and, thus, “conclusively established.” Rule 2-424(d). … Moreover, the court’s findings that the respondent continues to rely on alcohol and cocaine and has been unwilling fully to come to grips with that addiction are not clearly erroneous.

Raynor v. State

440 Md. 71 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

We accept the suppression court’s factual findings unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. Id. … Therefore, such analyses often qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment____ Similarly, an analysis required to obtain a DNA profile, like the chemical analysis of blood and urine at issue in Skinner , generally qualifies

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. McLaughlin

409 Md. 304 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 2009

Even though conducting an independent review of the record, we accept the hearing judge's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. … When no exceptions are taken, we "treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any." Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2).

Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

365 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

as valid service of process pursuant to Rule 3-121 (c) to establish in personam jurisdiction. … Pickett *88 has admitted to evading service of process in this action, as he asserted that the process server’s affidavit of good faith “clearly establishes that Appellant was evading service.”

W., B. A.R. Co. v. State

136 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 18, 1920

As we regard these *Page 116 prayers as contradictory, and not merely qualifying or modifying, we cannot hold that the error in the plaintiff's first prayer was corrected by the defendant's prayers and would be inclined to … But that first prayer and the defendant's fifth were clearly repugnant and contradictory.