Case law

Wilson v. State

181 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1942

But while guilt cannot generally be established by proving that the defendant has committed other crimes, nevertheless it is firmly established that evidence of declarations and acts may be admitted to show intent, or a common … scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County

306 Md. 617 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 1986

Appellant argues that Officer Freeberger is not immune from suit under the doctrine of public official immunity because Freeberger negligently failed to perform the mandatory (as opposed to discretionary) act of detaining … Appellees respond that the doctrine of public official immunity precludes suit by appellant against Officer Freeberger.

Murray v. Conley

124 Md. 218 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 11, 1914

The probate of a will establishes the factum of the will, which then speaks and takes effect from the time of the death *222 of the testator. Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 1 ; Wilcoxen v. Reese, 63 Md. 542 . M. … This is the principle generally recognized in respect to the title of an executor, and it is the one firmly established in. this State. In Winchester v.

Lynch v. Lynch

33 Md. 328 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1870

Cruelty of treatment, which is only ground for a qualified divorce, must not be allowed, when used as a justification for living separate from the offending party, to be made the ground for a final divorce. … Thus showing that the abandonment of the marital relation is not less deliberate and final on the part of the party complaining *331 than on the part of the party complained against; and under such circumstances, clearly,

Foster v. State

304 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 1985

Prosecutorial authorities had promised her immunity in exchange for her testimony. … With guilt having already been established by the first jury, there would be no prejudice in the second, sentencing jury, being ‘death-qualified’.

Small v. Schaefer

24 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1866

Morrison in these *159 terms: “In the latter case, all the authorities are fully reviewed in the opinion of the Court, and the rule of law clearly vindicated and established. … The facts bring the case clearly within the well known exceptions, to the operation of that statute.

Raitt v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

274 Md. 489 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1975

These comments, together with all those previously made by the court, clearly reveal that the sole ground for the directed verdict was an interpretation of Dunham to the effect that the out-of-state physicians were precluded … There is little reason to doubt appellant’s ability to establish this element of her case — by testimony or proffer — had she been permitted to reach that point.

Hurwitz v. State

200 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2001

But by a course of decisions running through a space of more than four hundred years, from the reign of Edward III, to the 59 of George III, without a single conflicting adjudication, these points are clearly settled: — ” … The evidence does not show any grant of immunity to Garonzik and Slipka, but it may be assumed as a matter of law that under the statute they automatically obtained immunity by testifying.

Hummelshime v. Hirsch

114 Md. 39 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1910

at the time of his election, and is nor now qualified *43 to act as Councilman, of the City of Cumberland.” … This distinction is clearly illustrated and defined in the case of Legg v. Annapolis, 42 Md. 203 .

State v. Bricker

321 Md. 86 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1990

If “the language in question [is] so clearly consistent with apparent purpose (and not productive of any absurd result) ... further research [is] unnecessary.” Kaczorowski v. … Clearly, Dr. Schultze could have testified in this capacity. It is improper, however, for a layman to testify on the “ultimate issue” of the defendant’s sanity.

Walzer v. Osborne

395 Md. 563 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2006

The General Assembly, when it enacted this provision, clearly intended for claims to be dismissed if the claimant failed to file the certificate of qualified expert within 90 days of filing the complaint. … Where the General Assembly has provided a special form of remedy and has established a statutory procedure before an administrative agency for a special kind of case, a litigant must ordinarily pursue that form of remedy

State v. Coleman

423 Md. 666 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2011

The former language, a “residential unit which is not completed,” clearly denotes an unfinished unit, which did not exist on the land that Coleman conveyed. … Thus, "a recital that the Legislature in the past really intended what is now being enacted into law, cannot render a statute immune from constitutional challenge on retroactivity grounds.” Id.

Howard v. Skinner

40 L.R.A. 753 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1898

There was other evidence tending to establish the qualification of the appellant, as a voter, but as it is conceded that he possessed all the necessary qualifications prescribed by the Constitution of the State, except that … The case of Collins, 64 Howard’s Practice Reports, 63, relied upon by the appellant, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Marshall v. Haney

4 Md. 498 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1853

Apart from the doubt which we entertain, whether the party would be permitted thus to qualify, if not to contradict his covenant, we cannot discover the relevancy of this evidence to any issue in the cause. … The declarations of an agent are not admissible to bind his principal under any circumstances, until the agency is first clearly established, which has not been done in this instance.

Foley v. William Mason & Son ex rel. Birckhead

6 Md. 37 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1854

As the case will go' back upon procedendo, without deciding whether the exception raises the question or not, we will take the occasion to' say, that the right to swear a witness upon his voir dire, clearly belongs to the … Conceding that both the sale and delivery in this case were conditional upon payment in cash, that the alleged usage was clearly established, and that this transaction took place in reference to that usage, still we regard

Kearney v. Berger

416 Md. 628 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2010

Our decision in Carroll therefore established that a case must be dismissed if the plaintiff has not filed a certificate of qualified expert, even if one of the parties has unilaterally waived HCADRO arbitration. 9 Our adherence … An abuse of discretion may also be found where the ruling under consideration is clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court or when the ruling is violative of fact and logic.

Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment

446 Md. 254 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 22, 2016

Additionally, it is well-established that “that agents of the State do not enjoy immunity with respect to a wrongful taking of property without just compensation.” Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. … LGTCA grants to local government employees only immunity from damages, not from suit.

Blount v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

247 Md. 342 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1967

Here, clearly, there was no such manipulation. The appellant himself defeated his own candidacy by an untimely change of residence. … Attorney General, supra, and the second contention is clearly without merit.

Rosenberg v. Helinski

328 Md. 664 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1992

His statements in court are immune from suit. B. … Rosenberg’s transcription fails to indicate that the news report clearly identified both Mrs. and Mr. Helinski by name.

Preston v. State

444 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2015

Witnesses “with a past” might exchange their testimony for a favorable plea deal arising from the case in which they are to testify or a related matter, or qualified or absolute immunity. … She stated that, after drinking the liquor, she recalled being able to see and think clearly.