Case law

Schweizer v. Schweizer

301 Md. 626 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1984

What constitutes “marital property” under § 8-201(e) is clearly “not dependent upon the legalistic concept of title.” Harper, supra, 294 Md. at 78 , 448 A.2d 916 . … The court emphasized: “To qualify under this rule, however, any unpaid marital debt must be directly traceable to the acquisition of marital property.” Id.

Smallwood v. State

343 Md. 97 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 1996

AIDS is thus the acute clinical phase of immune dysfunction .... AIDS is invariably fatal. Id. at 439-40 , 620 A.2d 327 . … Death by AIDS is clearly one natural possible consequence of exposing someone to a risk of HIV infection, even on a single occasion.

Brown v. State

359 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 2000

This comparison demonstrates that § 9-106 is clearly not a competency statute and that § 9-105 is clearly not a privilege statute. … In most jurisdictions the issue is qualified by the right of either the testifying spouse, the other spouse, or both, to consent to such testimony.

Prince of Peace Lutheran Church v. Linklater

421 Md. 664 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 21, 2011

This is clearly an act of retaliation to which the “course of conduct” test is applicable. … Linklater’s claims are prohibited by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the doctrine of charitable immunity.

Slingluff v. Johns

87 Md. 273 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1898

Generally speaking they are not suffered to defeat a clearly manifested intention * * *. … And this conclusion is reached by applying the principle so clearly and happily expressed in Rhodes v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Md. Auto. Ins. Fund

277 Md. 602 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1976

Comm'r, 219 Md. 607, 611 , 150 A.2d 421 (1959), we conclude that the "coverage" provided in the State Farm endorsement was clearly less than the "coverage" provided in § 243H. … The approval of the State Farm endorsement by the Insurance Commissioner is hardly persuasive where, as here, the endorsement so clearly limits coverage in violation of a statute.

Adams, Nelson, and Timanus v. State

200 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1952

Lenoir’s statement, while it clearly shows that an abortion was performed on her, does not show that it was illegal, because she had previously consulted a Dr. … But these points were clearly waived by the stipulation. Whether the witness could make a claim of privilege in absentia, is open to question.

Walker v. Oswald

68 Md. 146 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1887

The Court quotes with approval the construction placed by the same tribunal in 16 Wall., upon the clause “a majority of the legal voters of a township,” and adds, “this-we understand to be the established rule as to the effect … Any other rule would he productive of the greatest inconvenience, and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed.” *156 (Decided 16th December, 1887.)

Frick v. Frick

82 Md. 218 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1895

the natural meaning and operation of the will; such evidence would clearly be inadmissible.” … doctrine that if there be anything, in any part of the will which restricts or qualifies the general term, the latter must be so restricted and qualified, if it can be done without violating some other principle of law or

Witbeck v. ELECTRO NUCLEAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION

243 Md. 563 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 1966

Lovett, Jr., was duly appointed as trustee for the bankrupt corporation on February 24, 1966 and has duly qualified as trustee. … The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit for contractual claims.

Leviness v. Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co.

114 Md. 559 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1911

He is expressly invested with all the “incidents, rights, privileges, immunities and liabilities” of a stockholder. His dividends are payable only out of the “profits” of the company. … with practical convenience, it is incapable of application; for then it would destroy the very purpose for which it was established.

Bowman v. State

314 Md. 725 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1989

The only relevant evidence was the “certified record” and, as we have seen, it showed one qualifying conviction and one which did not qualify on its face, but required additional evidence to establish beyond a reasonable … Only one qualifying predicate conviction was shown and there was no competent evidence to establish the second.

Colvin v. Warford

20 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1863

But whatever effect the real principle involved in the cases cited might have, in, limiting or qualifying the rule sta-ted by Mr. … On the contrary, the instrument that was intended to effect the transfer was wholly inoperative for that purpose, and whatever effect it had in establishing an equitable claim to the property, it clearly shows the legal title

Giant of Maryland, Inc. v. State's Attorney

267 Md. 501 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1973

On the contrary, the “small business” exception is defined and limited by the qualifying phrase “with not more than six (6) persons on any one shift.” … Rebe is clearly dispositive of the constitutional question. We there relied on the constitutional principles enunciated in McGowan v. Maryland, supra, and Richards Furniture v.

Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass'n

276 Md. 187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1975

First, “[i]t effectively immunized from malpractice liability any doctor who happened to be the sole practitioner *194 in his community. … As we have indicated, the various specialties have established uniform requirements for certification.

Day v. Day

22 Md. 530 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1865

In our opinion, the payment of composition money by the appellee, did not, as between him and the State, establish the- relations of contracting parties. … In applying its imperative provisions to the present case, it is obvious that no patent can issue for the land in dispute, It is proper, however, to refer to another well settled rule, which clearly leads to the same results

President of Washington & Baltimore Turnpike Road v. State

19 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1862

This proposition is clearly *288 erroneous. … We have confined ourselves thus far to the consideration of the privileges, immunities and liabilities of the appellant under the Act of 1812.

LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.

381 Md. 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2004

In particular, the judge found that it was likely that Coinco would be able to establish at trial that LeJeune had possession of Coinco’s “technical information” and “overall strategy” that qualified as trade secrets under … The evidence admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing, LeJeune argues, does not establish any “actual or threatened” misappropriation of a trade secret.

Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Services, LLC

412 Md. 555 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 2010

In fact, Respondents assert that the only requirement not clearly established is that the order would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. … Moreover, we held in Dawkins that “interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, public official immunity, statutory immunity, or any other type of immunity,

Wachter v. McEvoy

125 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1915

That he qualified as a member of said board on the fourth day of May, 1914, and continued as such until the 23rd day of December, 1914, when the Governor accepted his resignation and appointed his successor, who has. qualified … Repeal of a former by a' subsequent statute, by mere implication, is never favored by the courts, and it is only when they arc clearly irreconcilable and not susceptible of any such fair interpretation as will allow of their