Case law

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.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Jones

484 Md. 155 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2023

In some cases, a flat fee may be a client’s only means of hiring qualified counsel.” Richmond at 133-34 (footnote omitted). 1. … Jones failed to clearly set forth the scope of his representation either in the Legal Representation Agreement or orally to Mr. Johnson. Mr.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Allenbaugh

450 Md. 250 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2016

This Court determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated an MLRPC. See Md. … Specifically, Allenbaugh failed to identify the proper type of visa for which Raphael and his family might qualify, instead advising Raphael to obtain an L-1 visa, for which Raphael was ineligible.

In re Banks' Will

87 Md. 425 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1898

which had been duly entered in Baltimore County, and that the interest of said Andrew Banks had passed to his trustee in insolvency subject to the lien of her said judgment, and she prayed that said lien be recognized and established … This distinction was clearly recognized in Crisp v. Crisp, 61 Md. 149 .

Galloway v. State

371 Md. 379 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 2002

Thereupon, Appellant’s counsel qualified Appellant on his knowing partial waiver of his right to a jury trial and the manner in which the trial would proceed: *429 [Galloway’s counsel:] Mr. … Clearly, the trial court is free to credit the testimony of the witnesses. See State v.

Gang v. Montgomery Cnty.

464 Md. 270 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2019

error when: (1) There (continued . . .) 3 the rate of his compensation was incorrectly calculated, because he qualified … In Vest, however, the limitations period had clearly run, as over five years had transpired between the claimant’s last payment of compensation and the date in which he petitioned the Commission for modification.

Hector v. Bank of New York Mellon

473 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 2021

Nugent granted the motion to dismiss: It is this Court [sic] position that that matter has already been decided, clearly decided, by Judge Williams. … See Housing Code § 105(jj) (including a “trustee” among the other individuals and entities who may qualify as an “owner”).

Prince George's County v. Local Government Insurance Trust

388 Md. 162 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 2005

The court did not reach the issue of whether the underlying claims otherwise qualified under the policy. Id. at 475 , 859 A.2d at 355 . … While the specific disposition of the court was a finding that the conclusion of the Circuit Court was not clearly erroneous, the reasoning of the Court of Special Appeals is applicable and has been applied by other courts

Attorney Grievance v. Brooks

476 Md. 97 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2021

Brooks established the unlikelihood of future misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. 42  D. … Brooks’s restitution to the Estate was not sufficiently timely to qualify as an independent mitigating factor, this remedial measure also sheds light on his character. If Mr.

Brutus 630, LLC v. Town of Bel Air

448 Md. 355 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2016

Lefferman, 4 Gill 425, 431 (1846) (“It is now established, by an unbroken series of adjudications in English and American courts, that where money is voluntarily and fairly paid, with a full knowledge of the facts and circumstances … The sewer connection fee at issue in this case would qualify as a “charge” or a “fee” under the ordinary definitions of those terms.

Thomas v. Bethea

351 Md. 1187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1998

In essence, defendants ask us to grant attorneys immunity from civil liability in cases where their clients have settled, absent some affirmative misrepresentation or fraud by the attorney. … In the instant case, the plaintiff acknowledges in his brief that "Christopher Brown, Esquire, after being duly qualified as an expert by the Court, testified that in his opinion the settlement recommended by Mr.

Schowgurow v. State

240 Md. 121 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1965

Not only is the record devoid of proof that residents of Cecil County, who were voters and taxpayers and otherwise qualified, had been systematically excluded as jurors because they were nonbelievers, but which is more significant … In the opinion, it is said that if any of the grand jurors were incompetent, the indictment would be clearly null and void.

Dept. of Env. v. Carroll Cnty. Frederick Cnty. v. Dept. of Env.

465 Md. 169 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 2019

The agency recognized that jurisdictions that later qualified as medium jurisdictions could be brought into the Phase I program through the residual designation authority. … Slip Op. at 38 n.41; rather, this Court’s holding in that case clearly demonstrates that MDE has exceeded its authority.

Derry v. State

358 Md. 325 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 17, 2000

If the words of a statute clearly and unambiguously delineate the legislative intent, ours is an ephemeral enterprise: we need investigate no further but simply apply the statute as it reads. … We so qualify this statement only because the record in this case does not contain any transcripts of the conversations in question.

Eagan v. Ayd

313 Md. 265 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1988

The result of the test shall be received in evidence, but only in case definite exclusion is established.... … By Ch. 551, Acts of 1984, the section was further amended to eliminate the court's discretion to reject a qualifying blood test.

Hagerstown Elderly Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hagerstown Elderly Building Associates Ltd. Partnership

368 Md. 351 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2002

In resolving the first issue, we concluded that, under subsection (a), a defendant's immunity from suit after twenty years did not depend on the defendant's occupation or on the type of service it provided. … Some amount, not clearly identified in the record, was withheld and placed in escrow in order to assure completion of those items.

State v. Lee

374 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 2003

The State was unable to elicit from the task force leader any particularized evidence about Lee, Lee’s home, or anything else that would qualify as exigent circumstances, as contemplated by Wil *282 son 3 and Richards.” 4 … We concluded “that the State presented ample evidence demonstrating that the items in [Oken’s room] would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, and therefore the motion judge’s ruling was not clearly erroneous

Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

430 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The requirements of the registration regime generally are triggered automatically by operation of law, once the defendant is convicted of a qualifying crime. 10 Petitioner was convicted of child sexual abuse, a crime that … Specific enforcement of the plea agreement, i.e., “the benefit of the bargain,” is one of two options available to a defendant when “the record of the plea proceeding clearly discloses what the defendant reasonably understood

Noble v. Bruce

349 Md. 730 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 21, 1998

beneficiaries in both cases ask this Court not to follow the Kirgan case, as the Court of Special Appeals did, because Kirgan is inconsistent with prior decisions of this Court and because it, in effect, creates “virtual immunity … The Fauntleroy case exemplifies a result that would clearly reform the will in that case. Both of Ms. Jackson’s wills provided that the taxes would be paid out of the residuary estate.

Ficker v. Denny

326 Md. 626 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1992

the power to legislate in municipal affairs, why we may ask should such power be limited to the judgment of the original ten petitioners, or any petitioners, once the petition has been signed by the appropriate number of qualified … XI-A, § 5, clearly contemplates that, when a petition has the requisite number of signatures and therefore is complete, the petition is to be filed...." Majority Op. at 632. I disagree.