Case law

United States ex rel. Washington Acqueduct v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.

21 Md. 119 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1864

The mutual intention and purpose of these Acts, clearly forbids any interpretation of their several provisions leading to such results. But the proposition hero may be placed upon a broader ground. … The theory, that any right is retained to oppose or qualify the exercise of the powers and privileges granted to the United States by this Act, is supported neither by reason nor authority, and we are constrained to say,

Breslin v. Powell

421 Md. 266 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2011

The plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of care and to prove that the defendant breached that standard. Crockett v. Crothers, 264 Md. 222, 224-25 , 285 A.2d 612 [, 614] (1972). … Breslin states baldly in his brief, "[u]se of the word liability clearly implies summaiy judgment.”

Wright v. State

88 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1898

This ruling was clearly correct. … evidence of its contents, must give some evidence that the original once existed, and must then prove its destruction positively, or at least presumptively, as by showing it has been thrown aside as useless, or he must •establish

St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A.

392 Md. 75 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2006

Cardiac Surgery maintains that the sole argument for appealability would be the collateral order doctrine, but that “the elements of the collateral order doctrine are not established.” (Cardiac Surgery’s brief at 2). … Howard County General Hospital, supra, 950 F.Supp. 141 , were also clearly in error.

Goldstein v. Mayor of Baltimore

273 Md. 85 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1974

Klein, who *88 qualified as an expert real estate appraiser, was produced as a witness for the Owners. … Certain general principles seem, however, to have been clearly settled by the current and weight of judicial authority.

Fenby v. Johnson

21 Md. 106 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1864

Eenhy and James Stirrat, the executors named in the will, qualified as such, returned an inventory and accounted with the Orphans’ Court. … It does not clearly appear whether this ground-rent was a part of the property taken by the executors from S.

State v. B. O.R.R. Co.

127 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1916

Co. acquired its rights and immunities of taxation from the Acts of 1854, Chapter 250, or after the adoption of the Constitution of 1851, and therefore, these immunities then granted were a subject-matter over which the Legislature … The Act of 1878 granted no additional immunity to the Railroad Company above that contained in its original charter.

Hanna v. Young

84 Md. 179 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1896

But in considering and passing upon the question of the constitutionality of the law, the rule is too well established and settled to be departed from ; that it must be made to appear that the statute, before it is declared … Without extending the discussion of this question we are clearly of opinion, both upon reason and authority, that the appellee’s contention is not sustained.

Suburban Hospital, Inc. v. Kirson

362 Md. 140 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 2000

The law that has developed in the federal courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 has established clearly that an appellate court, in order to preserve the right of appeal, may consider the separate document requirement to have been … Ill It is firmly established in Maryland law that the employer must pay compensation under the Act for the aggravation of a claimant’s medical condition due to medical malpractice in the treatment of a workplace injury.

Milburn v. State

1 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1851

Wilson, 2 Harr. and John., 345, establishes, the exception must be sealed by the court. … It is manifest from what we have said, that we are of opinion, that were it established that Milburn had been duly appointed and qualified prior to, or on the 6th of May 1845, his appointment and qualification would be legal

Piscatelli v. Smith

424 Md. 294 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 2012

“‘An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or the reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned … Piscatelli Did Not Establish that Respondents Abused the Fair Reporting Privilege Respondents’ reports of the supplemental discovery memorandum are fair and accurate.

Kopp v. Schrader

459 Md. 494 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2018

In that regard, we note that it was the State that raised the sovereign immunity defense, to an action that clearly alleged a right to back pay for employment based solely on written documents and that it should have been … That is how a system of checks and balances works.2 Conditions on Budget Appropriations and the Bayne Criteria As the Majority opinion indicates, it is well-established that, pursuant to Article III, §52(

Hutzell v. Boyer

252 Md. 227 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 1969

Md. 1959), a death case wherein Judge Watkins set forth in detail the procedure to be followed in establishing the present value of damages. … The establishing of earning capacity by work performed in the past has been allowed by this Court in Delph v. Ammons, 239 Md. 662 , 212 A. 2d 504 (1965) ; Ihrie v.

Walker v. State

373 Md. 360 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2003

We qualified our holding in Bradley by stating that “our holding is not applicable where there is no clearly independent area of inquiry or where failure to inquire into a possibly independent area of inquiry could create … The State specifically arranged for federal immunity in response to Myrick's request that he be given immunity from prosecution under sections 18 and 21 of the United States Code dealing with drugs and general criminal offenses

Canton Harbor Healthcare v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2025

This is clearly a determination that reads requirements into the HCMCA that do not exist. … It is well settled in Maryland that qualified expert testimony is necessary to establish two elements: (1) the breach of the standard of care; and (2) causation.

Menefee v. State

417 Md. 740 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 2011

After hearing oral arguments, the Circuit Court granted the State’s motion, explaining that “I think clearly the intent of the legislature was that in this particular instance, with this set of facts, that the proper party … Way of the National Capital Area to House Appropriations Committee (21 March 1996) (‘We have frequently pointed out the repetitive, time consuming, costly and unnecessary trips that applicants are required to endure to establish

Townsend v. Kurtz

83 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1896

policy of the State to continue in office for the term the incumbent who has been elected or appointed for a definite term, provided he competently and faithfully performs the duties of the office, unless there is something clearly … in office, and such charges should be 1 fully established when made.

Benson v. Mellor

152 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1927

mode of filling the vacancy is ‘clearly and explicitly provided.’ ” These authorities seem to us conclusive. *491 It has been, emphasized here, as in earlier cases, that such an effect given to the holding over by an incumbent … We should be open, however, to just censure if, to meet the supposed exigencies of the particular case, we were to deal lightly with principles long established and approved by the eminent jurists that have preceded us.”

In Re Arnold M.

298 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1984

That, in our view, is the legislature’s intended meaning of the term as used in § 3-829, qualified only by the exclusion of mothers and fathers not in custody of the juvenile at the time of the delinquent act. … The State’s Attorney’s arguments in support of the juvenile court’s decision, as previously set forth, are similarly flawed; they are clearly contrary to the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Deutsch

294 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1982

The third attorney was given immunity as the key government witness. … He said that estimate was high in order to protect himself under his immunity agreement.