Case law

State v. Stokes

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

Attorney Grievance v. Proctor

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2022

We may treat any facts not challenged by exceptions as established. Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A). … party shall specify so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder.

Baltimore Harbor Charters, Ltd. v. Ayd

365 Md. 366 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

In administering this test, we have established five criteria to consult for guidance. … The statute clearly states that when employment is terminated, employers must pay employees “all wages due for work that the employee performed before the termination of employment.” § 3-505.

Knight v. Nottingham Farms, Inc.

207 Md. 65 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1955

Haile and Roland Knight, the son of the testator, executors named in the will, who so qualified. … I cannot escape the conclusion that the facts in the instant case bring it within the rule so clearly restated in Gilden v.

Briggs v. State

413 Md. 265 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2010

Section 5-608(c) establishes *273 mandatory penalties for individuals who have been previously convicted of two offenses involving controlled dangerous substances. … c) suggests that the General Assembly intended to deviate from the well-established meaning of the phrase “charging document.”

State v. Stachowski

440 Md. 504 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 20, 2014

The relevant language of Silver states: “[a]s Walzcak and Lee have long since established, the State may request, in plea negotiations, that a criminal defendant agree to pay restitution for related, though uncharged, … We may decline to follow the doctrine when persuaded the prior decision is clearly wrong, Townsend v.

Post v. Bregman

349 Md. 142 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1998

The second issue, it said, emanated from the principle established in Von Hoffman v. … Nor, the court continued, did MLRPC qualify as “judicial precedent,” even assuming that judicial precedent was automatically incorporated into contracts.

Alarcon-Ozoria v. State

477 Md. 75 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2021

The plain language of the subsection is not qualified or limited by a requirement that the State’s Attorney use due diligence to identify only discoverable information that is already in the State’s possession or control … Clearly, material and information that must be disclosed under the Rule may be distinct or different from material and information that is possessed by or under the control of the State’s Attorney.

Rowe v. Md. Comm'n on Civil Rights

483 Md. 329 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2023

The employer-respondent challenged the City Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the administrative appeal was not a contested case and therefore did not qualify for APA judicial review; the City Court agreed and dismissed … Setting aside the fact that a fiscal note is not the binding text of a statute, this excerpt does not clearly mean that the General Assembly wished to apply multiple sections of the APA.

Maryland Board of Public Works v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC

425 Md. 482 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 2012

According to the regulation, DOE determines the applicant’s qualifications for a general license and actually forwards the license to a qualified applicant. See § ,04.05A(3). … The point, clearly explained by the two Secretaries, however, is that, in deciding whether to issue a wetlands license, the Board does not act — is not authorized to act — as a super land use authority.

Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.

351 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1998

The lease Morton signed contained the following provisions: “The Landlord agrees to lease to the Applieant(s) the above specified apartment so long as Applicant(s) qualify for tenancy under the criteria established by the … apparent and substantial physical injury, as manifested by an external condi *573 tion or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological, physiological, or mental state.”

Whittlesey v. State

340 Md. 30 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 1995

Furthermore, upon our own examination of the record, we do not think the trial court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. … Thus, with respect to the instant charge, Whittlesey was not immunized from questioning in the absence of counsel, and the Strathy conversations were properly admitted into evidence. C.

Jones v. State

420 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2011

[COUNSEL FOR JONES]: No objection [] as to the report itself, as whether it qualifies as a firearm (indiscernible). … whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe has been convicted of a crime of violence, or of a violation of any of the provisions of § 286, § 286A, or § 286C of this article, or any conspiracy to commit any crimes established

In Re Adoption/Guardianship C.E.

464 Md. 26 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2019

toxicology test; or B. upon the birth of the child, the child tested positive for a drug as evidenced by a positive toxicology test; and 2. the mother refused the level of drug treatment recommended by a qualified … The court affirmed the trial court finding that the “father did not establish a safe and stable environment for his son.”

Washington Home Remodelers, Inc. v. State

426 Md. 613 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2012

The intermediate appellate court first concluded that the plaintiffs did not qualify for relief under the Antitrust Act and also held that no remedy would lie under the CPA because an antitrust violation was “not listed” … Curran, 383 Md. 462, 481-82 , 860 A.2d 871, 882 (2004) (stating that "[w]hen a statute explicitly directs an administrative process and remedy, our policy is set clearly by the General Assembly to maintain the uniformity

Homer v. Crown Cork and Seal Co.

155 Md. 66 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1928

Up to this point, there is no ground for equitable intervention by injunction, but the bill of complaint contains further charges which appellants urge establish their equity. … The arbitrary nature of this book value is illustrated by the statement in one of the exhibits, which the bill does not deny nor qualify in any cognizable way, that the price offered is more than has been paid for the stock

Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-Lot, Inc.

270 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 1973

The schools are not engaged in the business_ of supplying services to the public, but are engaged in qualifying students to become practitioners of the art. . . .” 268 Md. at 59 (emphasis added). … Clearly, the thrust of these cases was the protection of an unwitting public against the lure of misleading advertising of professional services.

Grammer v. State

203 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 2001

the Supreme Court said: “One may not know or altogether understand the imponderables which cause one to think what he thinks, but surely one who is trying as an honest man to live up to the sanctity of his oath is well qualified … He continues, in speaking of the practice of trial without a jury: “There is hardly an institution in the state more firmly established.

Attrill v. Patterson

58 Md. 226 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 1882

Clearly not. The most he could possibly claim for, would be for any loss of time or service he had rendered A at. his solicitation, after compromise measures failed. … Such being our view of the plaintiff’s first and second prayers, it was error to qualify the defendant’s first and fourth prayers by making them in any way dependent on them.

Fister v. Allstate Life Insurance Co.

366 Md. 201 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2001

Second, and again, contrary to the present case, the premise for the principles of interpretation established in the Cole decision was the ambiguity surrounding the word “accident.” … Cole, and thus, qualified as an “accident” for purposes of recovering *216 insurance benefits. We made clear that this distinction, resulting from the ambiguity in interpretation, was critical. See id.