Case law

Green v. Nassif

426 Md. 258 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 2012

Bd. of Election Supervisors, 230 Md. 126, 130 , 186 A.2d 195, 197 (1962) ("[The statute] states no time limit within which the complaint by a qualified voter to the Election Board must be made, but certainly it is implicit … A substantive amendment to a statute is one that establishes the rights of persons. 1A Norman J. Singer and J.D.

Baltimore Building & Construction Trades Council v. Barnes

290 Md. 9 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1981

The court said: The Legislature, in using the words "any interested person" had before it long established legislative precedents which make it clear that an "interested person" in the sense in which those words are used … The Commissioner's construction is clearly permissible under the generalized language of the statute. Certainly, his construction does not violate any "plain and unambiguous" meaning of the words themselves.

Huff v. State

325 Md. 55 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1991

seemingly agrees that the immediate appealability of denials of the double jeopardy protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction rests on the collateral order doctrine, but Huff has not clearly … United States, 468 U.S. 317 , 104 S.Ct. 3081 , 82 L.Ed.2d 242 (1984), the Court described Abney as involving a claim that "met the three-part test established in Cohen v.

Jones v. State

403 Md. 267 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2008

Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. … Such a relinquishment is established by an inquiry ascertaining first, whether a defendant “clearly and unequivocally” wants to defend himself/herself, and second, whether the defendant has made a competent and intelligent

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Woolery

462 Md. 209 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2018

An attorney may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the moving party’s case be established. … Watson qualifies as a “person with a prior professional relationship” because Mr. Watson assisted Respondent and Mr. Hutchens in preparing the caveat case.

Kapneck 14-16 v. Breezy's Speakeasy

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2026

, 406 Md. 584, 604 (2008) (“[T]he Court’s strong and established policy is to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.” … Clearly, any view that the Majority expressed about a potential waiver of RP § 8- 401(h)(1) by a nonresidential tenant is dicta. Maj. Slip Op. at 12 n.4.

Taylor v. State

407 Md. 137 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 2009

Taylor's counsel clearly had ample opportunity to impeach B.D.'s version of events and his character for truthfulness. During cross-examination of B.D.' … To be sure, she qualified that it was "highly unlikely" that it could have occurred that way, but how likely it was was for the jury to decide.

Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Limited Partnership

351 Md. 554 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1998

The lease Morton signed contained the following provisions: "The Landlord agrees to lease to the Applicant(s) the above specified apartment so long as Applicant(s) qualify for tenancy under the criteria established by the … In the case at bar, the evidence clearly showed, and the jury found, that the injuries caused by Rampage were foreseeable by the defendants.

Winder v. State

362 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 2001

When a proper pretrial suppression motion is filed, the State must establish the voluntariness of the statement by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. … The common thread in each of these cases is that a singular statement communicated to the suspect may be sufficient to qualify as an inappropriate offer of help held out to the suspect.

Hanover Investments, Inc. v. Volkman

455 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2017

It argues that the judge’s familiarity with the issues from the earlier action established “unusual and compelling circumstances” for allowing the Declaratory Judgment Action to proceed despite the existence of a pending … 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

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee

387 Md. 89 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 2005

We believe that the language of Rule 16-723(a) clearly indicates that all statements made at a Peer Review Panel proceeding, no matter who the declarant is, remain confidential and privileged and thus unavailable for use … L.Rev. 1037 (2000) (postulating that reliance on the public policy rationale to preclude impeachment protects only dishonest parties and proposing a qualified approach to allow impeachment).