Case law

Pemberton v. Montgomery County

275 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1975

Pemberton asserts that the work which Exxon had accomplished by that date was merely preliminary and preparatory to actual construction of the service station and was thus not sufficient to qualify as the commencement of … That case, after taking note of the fact that the contractor had dug for a footing and then poured concrete into that excavation, nevertheless found the construction not to have been commenced so as to qualify, within the

Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc. v. State

306 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1986

That notice by its terms was only to be effective upon Chevy Chase’s qualifying for federal insurance. … This conclusion is clearly required, I think, in a mutual company, by the difference between the character of a matured claim and the character of a policy reserve.

Levin v. Hewes

118 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1912

To permit a mistake of this nature to defeat a clearly expressed purpose of the legislative body would be to set the letter above the spirit of an enactment, and to put a premium upon tampering with a measure while on its … Clearly it does not. This precise question was passed on by this Court in Little v.

Humphreys v. Walls

169 Md. 292 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1935

shall be a man of integrity: when so appointed he shall qualify before the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County by subscribing and taking oath of office in the same manner as Justices of the Peace now qualify; said … Since the Legislature had no power to establish a new court, these provisions of the act are void. Const, art. 4, sec. 1.

B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.

324 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1991

Stallings’ in-court testimony because each was based upon Grimes’ hearsay statements, which it determined qualified neither as admissions of a party opponent nor as part of the undifferentiated res gestae. Lt. … Despite the censure of the “res gestae ” phrase, we also acknowledge that the term came into usage at a time when the theory of hearsay was not well developed and the various exceptions not clearly defined.

Lowery v. McCormick Asbestos Co.

300 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

This Court held that the express immunity granted by § 2304 extended to every employer. … It is the relationship which imparts the statutory immunity.... * * # * * “...

Oglesby v. Williams

372 Md. 360 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2002

Oglesby met the constitutionally imposed residency requirements for the office of State’s Attorney and, thus, qualified to run for that office. … A domicile once established continues until a new domicile is established.

Sawyer v. Novak

206 Md. 80 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 2001

He qualified this statement, however, by admitting that at a forced sale the property should bring a minimum of $36,000. Mr. … We are not persuaded that his finding was clearly wrong, or that the price was grossly inadequate.

I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros.

276 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1975

as an express agreement; but such facts and circumstances, when shown, must be such to establish that the intention to work a novation is clearly implied. … is clearly implied.”

Myers v. Silljacks

58 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1882

that will he applied for their accomplishment, there are well defined limits to those principles, which cannot be transgressed; and in their application the Cóiirt must' ever be careful that it does not afford too great an immunity … Indeed, the present application is not even based upon a full recognition of the landlord’s title; but it is admitted only in a limited and 'qualified way, notwithstanding. the decision in the action at law.

McCann v. Sloan

25 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1866

They are clearly a good deal more. … But we are clearly of opinion that this can only apply where the claim is established by proof aliunde, and that such promise or acknowledgment cannot be relied on for the purpose of establishing the existence of the debt

Karthaus v. Owings

2 G. & J. 430 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1830

Cappeav, 6 Harr. and Johns. 401, the same rule is sanctioned and established. … The decision of this Court in 6 Harr, and Johns. 134, clearly settles this question.

In Re Maddox

55 L.R.A. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 1901

This Court, speaking through the late Chief Judge Bartol, in the course of its judgment denying the claim of the applicant, said : “ The privilege of admission to the office of an attorne}^ cannot be said to be a right or immunity … come, then, to interpret statutes which relate to subjects covered by the common law we must read them in the light which we derive from the common law, and we are not to construe them as overriding, by implication, long established

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc.

351 Md. 396 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1998

The court *412 further found that “[b]eeause the memorandum would have been generated whether or not litigation was pending, it does not qualify as attorney work product.” Griffith, 161 F.R.D. at 699 . … The party seeking the protection of the privilege bears the burden of establishing its existence.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Maryland Automobile Insurance 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.

Benson v. Mays

245 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1967

State University, 336 F. 2d 557 (5th Cir. 1964), where the court held in effect that since actions for medical malpractice sound in tort, such an action could not be filed for breach of contract to circumvent the sovereign immunity … While we recognize that Maryland Rule 313 authorizes joinder of tort and contract claims in any suit, we are wholly persuaded that the gravamen of the instant action so clearly sounds in tort, that its venue can only be established

Roy v. Dackman

445 Md. 23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2015

Clearly, such matters are not topics of common knowledge of lay people, who would populate most likely the jury in this case. … [The social worker] is not qualified to do that, as she was not qualified as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker. The testimony was improper and should have been stricken.

Dietrich v. Baltimore & Hall's Springs Railway Co.

58 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1882

They were offered by the plaintiff as evidence in chief; but as such they were clearly inadmissible. … The evidence produced to establish the negligence on the part of the defendant, establishes at the same time and as part of the plaintiff’s case, the want of reasonable care on hia own part in producing the injury complained

Burning Tree Club, Inc. v. Bainum

305 Md. 53 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 1985

In this context, the word “rights,” according to commentators, “includes all forms of privileges, immunities, benefits and responsibilities of citizens.” 80 Yale L.J., supra, at 908. … As our cases clearly demonstrate, state action does not violate the E.R.A. unless it has the effect of abridging or denying “equality of rights under the law” on the basis of sex.

Pittman v. Housing Authority

180 Md. 457 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1942

It is a firmly established principle of law that exemptions from taxation are not favored, but are strictly construed in favor of the State. … On the contrary, in case of doubt as to the legislative intention, the presumption is in favor of the taxing power and the burden is on the claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption by bringing himself clearly