Case law

Plaza Corp. v. Alban Tractor Co.

219 Md. 570 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 2001

Judge Hammond, for the Court, so clearly and fully set forth our reasons for so holding, with the supporting authorities, that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. … While this is not binding upon us as it has not been adopted by the Legislature of this State, it does represent the result of much research, experience and effort by those generally recognized as being eminently qualified

Carrier v. Crestar Bank, N.A.

316 Md. 700 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 1989

Item 4 of the Will established a “Marital Trust” for the benefit of Muriel Schinnerer. … The history underlying the enactment of § 7-501(b) suggests that it was enacted merely to establish a time limit for filing exceptions.

Beale v. American National Lawyers Insurance Reciprocal

379 Md. 643 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 2004

Though clearly this course of conduct involved different types of acts, these acts were tied together because all were aimed at a single particular goal. … After the suit was filed, the attorney sought a declaratory judgment to establish the limits of coverage.

Md. Reclamation v. Harford Cty.

342 Md. 475 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1996

The bill, inter alia, would establish a minimum rubble fill size of 100 acres and a buffer zone of 1000 feet. … Clearly, a local government does not lack "all discretion" with regard to the enactment of new land-use ordinances.

Stewart v. State

282 Md. 557 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 1978

The essence of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim *564 in the usual case is that the passage of time has frustrated his ability to establish his innocence of the crime charged. … The corollary, in turn, is qualified by the principle that an appeal will not lie from an *567 apparently interlocutory order, even though it denies a constitutional right, if the order is based upon the rightful exercise

McLean v. Maloy

136 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1920

Although what we have said is clearly established by the evidence, nevertheless! the plaintiffs entrusted Mr. Maloy and Mr. … Duncan, 112 Md. 346 , which show that the rule so clearly stated in the opinions quoted has never been departed from or qualified in this 'State.

State v. Thomas

464 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2019

First, we think Thomas is too eager to rely on lines that our cases have yet to clearly draw. In Schlossman v. State, 105 Md. App. 277, 289–91 (1995), overruled in part and on other grounds by Bailey v. … To knowingly distribute a dangerous, and 35 sometimes lethal, substance without such information qualifies as “a gross departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily

State v. Thornton & Dunbar

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2026

We accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we apply the law to those facts independently. Id. … The burden of establishing admissibility is triggered by an objection or motion.

Hand v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

405 Md. 375 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 2008

An entity may qualify as a holder in due course even if the instrument at issue may have passed through the hands of a thief. … This section establishes that the maker of a note or drawer of a check owes a duty of care to the holder and the drawee. UCC Comments 1 & 2.

Waters v. Pleasant Manor Nursing Home

361 Md. 82 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 2000

Petitioner argues here that the finding that she was permanently totally disabled as of 28 March 1985 qualifies as a determination of the date of disability as required by our holding in Shifflett . … The above amended statute clearly does not apply because (1) it became effective on 1 July 1973-after the date of injury, and (2) the amended statute states that it does “not apply to accidental injuries or occupational diseases

Moser v. Heffington

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2019

Heffington pled guilty in the criminal case and that those convictions establish the defense of “truth” as a matter of law. … He testified subsequently at a grand jury proceeding, where he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, and the government gave him immunity, thereby compelling his testimony. Id.

Admin. Off. of the Courts v. Abell Fnd.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2022

In the Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”), the General Assembly has established a policy that public records that are clearly disclosable should be made available for public inspection without unnecessary cost or delay … In the PIA, the General Assembly has established a policy that public records that are clearly disclosable should be made available for public inspection without unnecessary cost or delay.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering

438 Md. 611 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 21, 2014

No other state or federal court has subsequently held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally establishes a pre-test right to counsel for a suspected drunk driver. … Given the clearly expressed legislative intent in the implied consent, administrative per se law to remove impaired drivers from the road, to encourage detained drivers to submit to a test measuring impairment, and to obtain

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. McGLADE

425 Md. 524 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2012

Blumenthal, a qualified expert in land-use, administrative and real estate law, testified, in his opinion, Respondent did not competently handle Brewis’s legal matters in this case. … In determining the sanction, “we consider the egregiousness of Respondent’s misconduct in conjunction with the established mitigation.” Id., 27 A.3d at 171 .

Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Smallwood

327 Md. 220 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 1992

The proposed Anne Arundel County amendment also contained an "escape clause" that would have allowed the county council to exceed the cap upon approval by the qualified voters of the county in a referendum. … The cap amendments as modified by the Court clearly were not petitioned for by the voters — they signed amendment petitions which, according to the Court, were misleading and deceptive.

Chow v. State

393 Md. 431 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2006

The clearly erroneous standard does not apply to legal conclusions. Nesbit v. GEICO, 382 Md. 65, 72 , 854 A.2d 879, 883 (2004). … The petitioner argues that the term “knowingly” in § 449(f) establishes a mens rea equivalent to specific intent.

Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

89 Md. 689 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1899

that this Act was a recognition of Pompton as one of certain towns authorized to issue such bonds, and the Court said: “ In cases like this, legislative ratification is the equivalent of original authority, and what is clearly … that case, that the decree appealed from was fully warranted, and that the Legislature having granted to the company the right to use the trolley system, it necessarily followed that the Mayor and City Council could not ' qualify

Knight v. Princess Builders, Inc.

393 Md. 31 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 2006

In 1777, the General Assembly enacted the first statute establishing orphans’ courts in the counties for the probate of estates, both testate and intestate. 1777 Md. Laws, Chap. 8. … Knight clearly recognized that Princess Builders had an interest in the Orphans’ Court proceedings because they served the company with copies of their pleadings.

Rubin v. State

325 Md. 552 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1992

When an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced … It clearly was not.

Velicky v. The CopyCat Building LLC

476 Md. 435 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2021

Under these definitions, residential tenants who lease real property qualify for protection under the MCPA. See Golt v. … We determined that the value of the right to possession clearly exceeded $12.95.