Case law

Kopp v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2026

Appellate Court described the circuit court’s finding as being that Rosebay Court has “a significant level of crime in that area,” and, without applying the factors set forth in Washington, concluded that the finding “was not clearly … According to the State, “the record confirms that the 5-Nancy-1 beat did, in fact, qualify as a high-crime area under the standard set forth in Washington.”

Syed v. Lee

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

Lyon v. Townsend

124 Md. 163 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1914

And the jury may, upon the whole evidence, infer incompetency at the time of executing or acknowledging the will or testament, according to the character and cause of the entire incapacity proved; which may be established … Assuming the testimony of the plaintiffs as to- the circumstances attending the execution of the will to'be true, the case in our judgment falls clearly within the exception to the general rule.

Hemming v. State

469 Md. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2020

Hemming to establish that the trial judge’s denial of the motion to bifurcate was an abuse of discretion. … With these concerns established, the Rules Committee ultimately declined to submit a recommendation to amend Rule 4-252.

Portillo Funes v. State

469 Md. 438 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2020

The Court accepts the suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, unless clearly erroneous, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—here the State. Bost v. … Portillo does not argue that Officer Sharkey did not qualify as an expert witness, despite our holding in State v.

State v. Norton

443 Md. 517 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 2015

In sum, the formalities attending the “report of blood alcohol analysis” are more than adequate to qualify [the analyst’s] assertions as testimonial. … The language “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, Harold Norton . . . is the major source of the biological material obtained from [the] evidence” clearly “accus[es] a targeted individual of engaging in

Walker v. State

432 Md. 587 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 2013

That abuse can as easily arise from several qualifying acts as from one.” Cooksey v. State, 359 Md. 1, 23 , 752 A.2d 606 (2000). … Taken together, the content of these notes qualifies as being sexually exploitative.

Danshin v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 2025

We highlight this account to illustrate that, as we explain in greater detail below, it qualified as “some evidence.” … In the video recording of the interview, he clearly states, “had I shot anyone, that would be the why.” 5 (Emphases added).

Ver Brycke v. Ver Brycke

379 Md. 669 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2004

You stated that notwithstanding the above potential risk, you would like to proceed to attempt to qualify the gifts as being made in $40,000.00 increments. … As the jury did not clearly answer that question because of the ambiguous wording of Question 3C, the judge had to make that call, and I would not disturb the judge's decision.

Dennis v. Dennis

15 Md. 73 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1860

U.I).,’ — and seek to establish from other sources the actual value, under fair management, of the trust property during the continuance of the trust.” … Dennis; for if that fact was clearly established, we should, nevertheless, be of the opinion that the account should not be considered as prima facie correct.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Flack

104 Md. 107 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1906

But before touching upon that reason it will be necessary to understand clearly what is the contention of the' appellees, and what is the precise meaning of sec. 7. … Council was incompetent to restrict or qualify, by ordinance, any of the powers conferred on the Annex Commission by the Act of 1904.

Supervisor of Assessments v. Peter & John Radio Fellowship, Inc.

274 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1975

lands purchased for future use or to prevent encroachment and that houses, buildings and grounds used as farmhouses, barns, storage sheds, dining halls, kitchens, dormitories, rodeo arenas, swimming pools, simply do not qualify … Joseph, 48 Md. 34, 40 (1878), that "[o]ne of the fundamental rules of construction of legislative Acts relating to taxation is, that `nothing is more *367 conclusively established, as well by the decisions of the Supreme

Streater v. State

352 Md. 800 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1999

Therefore, when a party wishes to introduce other crimes evidence, the trial court's initial step must be to make a legal determination as to whether the evidence has some special relevance so that it qualifies as an exception … ' necessary to establish the offense of harassment.

Ghingher v. Pearson

165 Md. 273 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1933

The absence of uniformity among the decisions of other jurisdictions renders it all the more important clearly to apprehend the doctrine as formulated and applied in Maryland. … which cases the receivers appointed by a court under section 382 of article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws are vested wfith all the estate and assets of every kind belonging to such corporation from the time of their qualifying

State v. Brookins

380 Md. 345 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 2004

“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” Buckley v. … voters to place propositions, i.e. proposals for new laws or amendments to the Constitution, on the ballot through an initiative process, so long as they were able to obtain the signatures of at least five percent of the qualified

Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mintz

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2025

Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223 (2012) (noting that “an attorney’s failure to take fundamental steps in furthering a client’s matter qualifies as neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interest”). … This conduct clearly constitutes violations of Rule 3.4. F.

State v. Parker

334 Md. 576 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1994

To the contrary, it is well established that “[a] court has a power to impose whatever *593 sentence it deems fit as long as it does not offend the maximum and minimum penalties. … Carter, 454 F.2d 426, 428 (4th Cir.1972) (en banc) (govern *601 ment bound by federal prosecutor’s promise of immunity from prosecution outside his own jurisdiction), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 933 , 94 S.Ct. 2646 , 41 L.Ed.2d

Ramirez v. State

464 Md. 532 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2019

a structural error [that is] not susceptible to establishing prejudice.” … This circumstance would clearly not constitute trial strategy. We are satisfied that Ramirez has met the burden to prove that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient.

NCR Corp. v. Comptroller of the Treasury

313 Md. 118 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 1988

While a committee’s rejection of an amendment is clearly not an infallible indication of legislative intent, it may help our understanding of overall legislative history. See Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. … Nonetheless, “[i]t has long been established that the income of a business operating in interstate commerce is not immune from fairly apportioned state taxation.” Mobil Oil Corp. v.

South Easton Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Easton

387 Md. 468 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 2005

The Hospital lies within a Commercial-Medical Zoning District (“C-M Zone”) 4 , established in 1993 and last amended by Town ordinance in 1998. The Hospital’s main campus bears the address 219 South Washington Street. … We clearly have jurisdiction over the appeal as to the declaration, a final judgment. Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.) § 12-301 of the Cts. and Judicial Proceedings Article.