Case law

Atlantic Contracting & Material Co. v. Ulico Casualty Co.

380 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2004

In addition, Atlantic promised to deposit with Ulico on demand any reserve against loss that Ulico required or deemed prudent to establish, “whether on account of actual liability or one which is, or may be asserted against … Qualified Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Trust Co., 273 Md. 579, 584 , 331 A.2d 293, 296 (1975); Noyes Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. v. Wilson Towers Ltd. P’ship, 122 Md.App. 283, 294 , 712 A.2d 126, 131 (1998).

Liichow v. State

288 Md. 502 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1980

The intermediate appellate court concluded that, because Liichow was leaving the area, exigent circumstances were established. … This is clearly demonstrated by Twigg's testimony at the suppression hearing, as previously set forth. See also State v.

Heyn v. Fidelity Trust Company

174 Md. 639 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1938

S'uch divisions of corporate capital and of assets in liquidation are clearly not dividends in the sense intended by the Legislature, and so do not constitute a restriction on the scope of the application of “All * * * dividends … In the Restatement of the Law of Trusts by the American Institute of Law the whole subject matter is considered, and the law on the subject is formulated, with the qualifying footnote that its rules are not effective where

Baker v. State

367 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 2002

Whether the sentencer is the Court or a jury, the State bears the ultimate burden to establish the propriety of a death sentence. … In Maryland, aggravating "qualifying” factors must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. .

Sprenger v. Public Service Commission

400 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2007

Since none of the four entities re *9 questing rehearing were parties to the proceeding, none qualify to request rehearing. … "It is also clearly evident that Friends never filed a petition for judicial review.” Clipper I, 399 Md. at 564 n. 26, 924 A.2d at 1174 n. 26. .

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Whitehill

104 Md. 295 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1906

That to establish negligence, mere delay is not sufficient, but the delay must be proved to have resulted from some independent specific act of negligence; 2nd. … If by open market, was meant that the sale was made before the close of the regular market as held that day, the prayer should have been so framed as clearly to express that meaning. As offered it was properly rejected.

Brewster v. Woodhaven Building & Development, Inc.

360 Md. 602 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2000

Thus, the order would clearly seem to be final and appealable under the above cited cases." … That is clearly not the situation when a case is transferred for venue purposes.

Montgomery v. Eastern Correctional Institution

377 Md. 615 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 2003

Hubbard, 305 Md. 774, 792 , 506 A.2d 625, 634 (1986) (“application of the State Board of Education’s expertise would clearly be desirable before a court attempts to resolve the” legal issues). B. … Were it otherwise, almost any personnel grievance might qualify as an “abuse of authority” or a “violation of law” under the Whistleblower Law.

Impac Mortgage Hldgs. v. Timm

474 Md. 495 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2021

In particular, the court found that the contrast between the language of some of the examples in the charts that clearly provided for collective voting and the language of the Series B Voting Provision was “striking.” … Voting Provision was plausible – and this Court ultimately agrees with the result that the 40  In the Circuit Court, Impac initially argued that the Voting Provision clearly

Hallam v. New Life Evang. Baptist Church

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2026

The court must hold a hearing “if a hearing is requested and the exceptions or any response clearly show a need to take evidence.” Md. Rule 14- 305(e)(2). … In contrast, “the note in Bierman, as a forgery, was fraudulent in itself and, as fabricated evidence, also qualified as a fraud on the court.” Id. (citation modified).

Kang v. State

393 Md. 97 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2006

The interpreter’s oath makes this crystal clear, Rule 16-819(d)(3), and that was clearly our intent when we adopted the Code of Conduct for Court Interpreters. … Viewing the totality of the circumstances in that light, this Court concluded that "the record is woefully deficient to establish that Tibbs knowingly and voluntarily relinquished his right to a jury trial.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia

325 Md. 420 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1992

Owens-Illinois clearly is held to the same "state of the art" standard as those defendants present at the depositions. … That is accomplished by changing the burden of proof, that clearly will exclude some undeserving cases, no doubt, a large number, even applying the old standard.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hecht

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2026

Hecht did not establish the existence of any mitigating factors. … Although we qualified our holding in Vanderlinde, Vanderlinde has not been overruled.

Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad v. State

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

As We regard these *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 reverse … But that first prayer and the defendant’s fifth were clearly repugnant and contradictory.

State v. Zadeh

468 Md. 124 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2020

United States][12] problem, then clearly it’s in everyone’s interest, other than maybe the defendants ... to have one trial.” … Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, these facts fairly establish, at least, that (1) Ms. Pannell- Brown and Mr.

Stevenson v. State

287 Md. 504 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1980

However, we find it unnecessary to explore this aspect of the common law of arrest because we believe the State is clearly correct in its interpretation of the second prong of the Paul rule — that all that is required, in … What title has he to immunity from the law which he has violated, and to be permitted to escape itp penalties because the officer of justice is not at hand to seize him?

State v. Bowers

349 Md. 710 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1998

The threshold determination is whether one *722 offense qualifies as a lesser included offense of a greater offense. … jurors’ presumed emotional response to want to convict a defendant who is ‘plainly guilty’ of something is tempered by having an array of plausible verdicts from which to choose, including the verdict which the evidence most clearly

Martinez v. Amazon

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2025

The Sandifer Court held that “donning and doffing … the protective gear at issue qualifies as ‘changing clothes’ within the meaning of [the FLSA].” Id. at 232. … If the statutory language is “unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, [the] inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without resort to other rules

Payne v. Erie Insurance Exchange

442 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2015

They do not qualify as reasonable inferences that allow the Paynes to escape summary judgment. … Precedent clearly establishes that, for coverage under an omnibus clause to extend to a second permittee, when the second permittee has been expressly forbidden by the named insured from driving the vehicle, the first permittee

Kremen v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

363 Md. 663 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 2001

It is necessary first to provide a brief history of the collateral source rule, long established, under Maryland law. We provided a plenary explanation of the rule in Plank v. … As in State Farm above, a second payment "would clearly constitute a duplication of benefits in violation of the general legislative purpose reflected in [§ 19 — 513(b) ].” (quoting State Farm v. Ins.