Case law

State v. Houston

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2026

Houston first testifies that his wife once pulled a knife on him and (2) the defense establishes that Dr. Houston told Mr. … doctrine is not technically an exception to the final judgment rule; rather, it is “a judicially created fiction, under which certain interlocutory orders are considered to be final judgments, even though such orders clearly

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

Turenne v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2024

When a term is not defined, we must determine what the term means, applying Maryland’s well-established rules for statutory interpretation. … The elements of child sexual abuse are well-established. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (2002, 2021 Repl.

Chevy Chase Bank v. Chaires

350 Md. 716 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 1998

Nothing in [SMLL] states that the prior encumbrance must be a traditional mortgage or deed of trust in order to qualify it as a prior encumbrance subject to the provisions of the secondary mortgage statute.” … Thus, the SECL benefit assessment is clearly an encumbrance. Further, from and after Chapter 615 of the Acts of 1980, it is also a lien.

Webster v. State

299 Md. 581 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 25, 1984

The Statement of Charges and the arrest warrant were issued prior to the lineup, but neither qualified as a “formal charge.” The Statement of Charges charged Webster with first degree rape. … The record clearly reflects that the Johnson lineup, like the Webster lineup, was “conducted in the absence *620 of counsel with scrupulous fairness and without prejudice to the accused at trial.”

Clemons v. State

392 Md. 339 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2006

It’s clearly an unjustifiable extrapolation. And that has been occurring in over three decades in this practice and that’s one of the objections of about 18 to the practice because it basically summarizes. … The trial court then stated that it would qualify Peters as an expert in CBLA and permit him to testify concerning CBLA, and effectively overruled Clemons’s prior objection.

Supervisor of Assessments v. Keeler

362 Md. 198 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2001

zoning ...".[ [5] ] The appellant, the Supervisor of Assessments of Baltimore County, determined that all property within the development envelope, except for one acre that was to *825 be used as a caretaker's residence, [6] qualified … We explained: "It is now established Maryland law, both by legislative enactment and by prior decisions of this Court, that taxation is the rule with exemption the exception, and that statutes providing for tax exemption

State v. Smith

345 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1997

Hence, we begin our analysis with a review of the principles established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). … This initial frisk was clearly proper. Officer White testified, however, "[w]hen I patted [Smith] down, I didn't feel anything."

Jones v. Anne Arundel County

432 Md. 386 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2013

In addition to the requirement of residence as provided in Section 201(a) of this Article, each member of the County Council shall be a qualified voter of the County and not less than twenty-five years of age at the time … The purpose of this district residence requirement was clearly representational, a “guarantee” that the Charter Board understood as absent from the earlier electoral scheme.

In re: G.R.

463 Md. 207 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2019

The Court turned to the dictionary definition of “direct” establishing it as meaning “stemming immediately from a source, [as in direct] result ... proceeding from one point to another in time or space without deviation … Any attempt by a court to craft a proximate causation, mere nexus, or single charging document substitute would be clearly contrary to the plainly-worded intent of [CP] § 11–603. 384 Md. at 61.

Thompkins v. Mountaineer Investments, LLC

439 Md. 118 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2014

And certain provisions of the SMLL clearly apply during the life 11 The statute prohibits the mortgage agreement from providing for the “[a]ssignment ... for the payment of wages” (CL §12-409(3)) – a … 15 In its brief, Mountaineer argues that, even if CL §3-306 created derivative liability for an assignee for a lender’s violations of the SMLL, it would not be subject to such liability because it would qualify

Tharp v. State

362 Md. 77 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2000

[Petitioner’s attorney] might have qualified as a competent witness in Sellers’s case.” Petitioner’s Br. at 15-17 (citing Md. … Unfortunately, this intent was not stated so clearly on the record in Sellers’s trial. .

State v. Neiswanger Mgmt. Servs., LLC

457 Md. 441 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 2018

Medicare recipients are entitled to up to 100 days’ coverage in a nursing facility after a qualifying hospital stay. … The General Assembly clearly intended for these provisions to operate in tandem.

Fowlkes v. State

311 Md. 586 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1988

Gilbert, could you qualify him? MR. FOWLKES: You say I have plenty of time? THE COURT: As to—listen to what he is doing. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Fowlkes, as you know I am Robert Gilbert. I am an Assistant State’s Attorney. … State, 305 Md. 654, 656-657 , 506 A.2d 240 (1986), we considered the validity of such a provision to be clearly established. After citing Howell v.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patton

432 Md. 359 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2013

Christiane Tellefsen was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry and testified before the hearing judge that she had met with Respondent and reviewed his medical and treatment records, including those from … In our review of the record, the hearing judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Rule 16-759(b)(2); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50 , 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006).

Syed v. Lee

488 Md. 537 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2024

In our view, however, the point is not only arguable, but 52 clearly established: if a court grants a motion to vacate a conviction under CP § 8-301.1, the court necessarily … It is a broad purpose statement and clearly did not establish a self-executing substantive right. 26 This purpose statement fits within the description this Court applied in

Jensen v. State

355 Md. 692 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 1999

I don't believe at this stage you've yet established that basis for her opinion, all right? Thank you. * * * * * * (The jury was excused from the courtroom.) … The federal note clearly contains the more restrictive language.

Maryland National Bank v. Cummins

322 Md. 570 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1991

MNB advances to us four reasons why it says the circuit court clearly erred in finding a breach of duty. … The foregoing is the rule established in Real Estate Trust Co. v. Union Trust Co., 102 Md. 41 , 61 A. 228 .

Barrie School v. Patch

401 Md. 497 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2007

Liquidated damages provisions are not immune to this general rule. John Cowan, Inc. v. Meyer, 125 Md. 450, 462-63 , 94 A. 18, 21 (1915). … Thus, the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to establish a fixed sum as the amount of damages for a breach of contract as to which damages cannot be ascertained easily.

Taylor v. State

473 Md. 205 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 2021

Defense cross- examination of a police detective at trial established that no forensic evidence linked the large knife to the alleged assault. … The alleged error in this case clearly does not rise to the level of qualifying for plain error, i.e., it does not rise to the “compelling, extraordinary, exceptional[,] or fundamental” level of plain error.