Case law

Price v. Collins

122 Md. 109 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1913

established than that Courts of equity will not interfere by injunction to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public officers or their title to office, such questions being of a purely legal nature … The law upon the question here involved is strongly and clearly stated — In re Sawyer, 124 U.

Lewis v. Waletzky

422 Md. 647 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2011

erred in applying Maryland law, when lex loci delicti directed application of D.C. law to determine elements of negligence claim); and (3) cases involving whether to apply Maryland’s then-existing doctrine of interspousal immunity … Though of obvious importance to the Act, these filing provisions in no way establish, deny, or define a cause of action.

Simmons v. Director of Patuxent Institution

231 Md. 618 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1963

Boslow, the Director of Patuxent and a qualified psychiatrist, Dr. Kohlmeyer, a qualified staff psychiatrist, Dr. Manne, a qualified staff psychologist, and Dr. … We cannot find that the court was clearly wrong in ordering the recommitment. Application denied.

Barnes v. State, Ex Rel. Pinkney

236 Md. 564 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1964

They facilitate checking of *572 the petitions by interested persons to ensure that only qualified persons have signed. Similar provisions have been upheld as reasonable in other jurisdictions. Shields v. Wells, 65 S. … Section 169 is clearly designed to provide additional means by which fraudulent or otherwise improper signatures upon a referendum petition may be detected.

Church v. State

408 Md. 650 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2009

Watkins clearly yielded to the prosecutor’s purportedly greater knowledge of the facts. … In Green , the court held that a qualified privilege existed for non-disclosure of covert surveillance and specifically noted that the surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer’s privilege in

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

48 Md. 49 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1878

from taxation — this has been expressly granted; and to withhold such immunity from the company or its property. … Whenever it undertakes to grant the exemption from taxation, it must be clearly expressed. It must not be inferred except from necessary implication. McCulloh vs. State, 4 Wheaton, 428 .

Garcia v. Angulo

335 Md. 475 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1994

The term “qualified person” in Art. 48A, § 243L(e) is derived from Md.Code (1957), Art. … Cases decided under the predecessor statute have established that “resident of this State” in the definition of “qualified person” means a domiciliary of Maryland. See Hawks v.

Athas v. Hill

300 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 1984

Clearly something extra is needed over and beyond the duty owed the employer. In Hoeverman [v. … Our review of the cases establishes that, although reasons have differed, the majority rule is against recovery in cases such as that at bar.

Montgomery County Council v. Garrott

243 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 1966

meaning were not made apparent by the following requirement of the Constitution that the election be by the qualified voters of the county is clearly defined by its historical background and its commonly agreed-upon interpretation … The districts were established by the Charter in 1948.

State v. Baker

453 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Id. at 508 n.24, 98 S.Ct. 824 (citing Downum, 372 U.S. 734 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 ); see also In re Mark R., 294 Md. at 262 , 449 A.2d 393 (“[T]he cases clearly establish that a deficiency in the prosecution’s evidence, whether … Rule 2—512(f)(1) ("The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order previously designated by the trial judge and

State Department of Assessment & Taxation v. North Baltimore Center, Inc.

361 Md. 612 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2000

that it was a charitable organization 2 and evidence offered by the Supervisor to establish the opposite. 3 *615 Noting the prerequisites that must be met to qualify for an exemption from real property taxation — the property … That too is a hard-and-fast rule, which, had this Court intended it, could, and would, have been more clearly stated. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. 1 .

Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.

327 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 1992

action provided by that law, and that Parsons, having assumed some of MTA’s duties, was entitled to the same “immunity.” … Clearly, the jury could have found that Brady should not have climbed onto the wall, and was negligent in doing so.

Langhammer v. Munter

27 L.R.A. 330 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1895

Adopting this principle, in the case we are now considering, what does the proof establish ? … The framers of our Constitution have in the 1st section of Article. 1 clearly recognized these applications of the word residence.

Carey v. State

155 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1928

Carey-replied, saying, “Well, you know me well enough to know that I don’t want any immunity or anything.” *479 It is contended by the defense that the evidence produced by the State was not sufficient to show that the statement … He had not qualified as an expert on the subject, and to have allowed him to answer the question, the court, by so doing, would have submitted, to his determination a question which the jury alone should have decided.

Jewell v. State

216 Md. 110 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1958

conviction of the defendants of grand larceny of a shotgun has to be based on the belief that the gun had a value of one hundred dollars or more, we are unable to rule, on the evidence offered, that the lower court was clearly … The deputy was qualified to express an opinion with respect to the value of the gun as is shown by the preliminary examination conducted to establish his qualifications to testify as an “expert”.

Forrester v. State

224 Md. 337 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 1961

From the above, it should be clear that we certainly cannot say the trial judge was clearly erroneous in his finding of facts relative to this contention of the appellant. Maryland Rule 886 (a). … During the course of his trial, he had tried to establish the fact that certain people were trying to “get” him, i. e., to have him removed from office.

Faya v. Almaraz

329 Md. 435 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1993

AIDS is thus the acute clinical phase of immune dysfunction. … We held that this evidence was legally sufficient to establish symptoms of a mental state evidencing a “physical injury.” Id.

Phillips v. State

451 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 2017

Dep’t of Fin., 450 Md. 177, 187 (2016) (“We give due regard to the trial court’s role as fact-finder and will not set aside factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quoting Breeding v. … As long as the laboratory’s procedures have been validated by standards previously established by one of these entities, and the analysis is performed in accordance with those validated procedures, then the analysis qualifies

Duvall v. McGee

375 Md. 476 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2003

The defendant was the beneficiary under two spendthrift trust established by his late mother. … Clearly, any benefit McGee receives from the Trust vested prior to the commission of his criminal acts and is completely independent of, and separate from, his criminal conviction.

Higgins v. State

64 Md. 419 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1885

All the qualified voters, therefore, of that part of election district No. 3, now forming election district No. 6, had a right and were called upon to vote at the election of May, 1876, for or against the adoption of the … The repeal by mere implication of a former by a subsequent statute is never favored by the Courts, and it is only where they are clearly irreconcilable, and not susceptible of any such fair interpretation as will allow of