Case law

Dove v. State

415 Md. 727 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 21, 2010

Dove argues that the sentencing judge clearly relied upon the fingerprint cards in evaluating the expert’s testimony and in determining whether the State successfully established Dove’s identity in the prior convictions. … Without the fingerprint card, in Dove’s view, the State could not have established Dove’s identity or linked him to the previous qualifying conviction.

Jun v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2026

Defense counsel pressed the detective on whether the Verizon records established that the 220 IP address was assigned to Mr. … Clearly, specialized education or training was required to understand the meaning of the information in the Kik legend and logs files.

Stewart v. Iglehart

7 G. & J. 132 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1835

That Joseph Stewart, or wife, never owed him a dollar,, That he promised to secure the land to Maria Stewart, and her children, both before the deed was executed, and after-wards, are facts too clearly established by the … That Joseph Stewart made this deed with intent to defraud his creditor, Davidson, his answer (qualified as it no doubt is,) admits conclusively; and therefore his deed made with such a design, is according to all the authorities

Minor v. State

334 Md. 707 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1994

The Court returned to the Leon rule when considering an immunity defense asserted to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of an arrest on a warrant, the supporting affidavit for which failed to establish probable … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), held “that the same standard of objective reasonableness that we applied in the context of a suppression hearing in Leon ... defines the qualified immunity accorded

In the Matter of Antavis Chavis

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2023

Chavis did not qualify for a test accommodation “[i]n the absence of objective data to prove the ADHD diagnosis and establish impairment in a major life activity as compared to most people[.]” Mr. … Thiebaud clearly stated on the ADHD Verification Form that he based his diagnosis and findings on personal experience and neuropsychiatric testing. - 30 - not establish that Mr.

Wingert v. State

125 Md. 536 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1915

Because the return of the appraisers in the matter of appraisement, in the absence of fraud or/ mistake, establishes the true value of the real estate and is conclusive thereof. … It would clearly have been competent and entirely within the power of the Orphans’ Court, upon charges of incompetency, neglect of duty, or unfaithful conduct, injurious to the interest of the estate, if sustained by proof

Armwood v. State

229 Md. 565 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 1962

If he had merely remained silent he would have been immune from any police interference until a warrant had been procured. See Cornish v. State, 215 Md. 64, 69 , 137 A. 2d 170 (1957), citing Blager v. State, supra. … Under these circumstances the determination as to whether the search was permissive was for the trier of the facts, and unless we find it to have been clearly erroneous, which we do not, we may not substitute our judgment

Hurst v. v & M of Virginia, Inc.

293 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 1982

Hurst filed a petition to establish and enforce a mechanics’ lien after he was not paid in full. … Ordinarily, the word refers to the entire building, and if a part only is intended qualifying words are used.”

Hauch v. Connor

295 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1983

The rule of lex loci delicti is well established in Maryland. When its rationale has been put into question, *124 "this Court has consistently followed the rule,” White v. King, 244 Md. 348, 352 , 223 A.2d 763 (1966). … The courts clearly consider that this system of mutual give and take would be upset if the employee could sue for negligence in another jurisdiction.” (Footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied.) 4 .

Sigma Delta Chi v. Speaker, Maryland House of Delegates

270 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1973

Ed. 2d 626 (1972), the Court held that the First Amendment does not immunize news reporters from the requirement of disclosing confidential information to grand juries. … This statement is clearly inapposite here. While the removal of pen and paper might frustruate all effective communication, the prohibition against tape recorders is a mere inconvenience.

Mundey v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

233 Md. 169 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1963

Code (1957), Art. 66½, sec. 159 requires a qualified judgment creditor who seeks payment from the Fund to show that *171 he has met the requirements of sec. 154. … We think the words “physically incapable of giving notice” clearly import a greater incapacity than mere inability to give notice in person or to give notice only with difficulty.

M. A. Long Co. v. State Accident Fund

156 Md. 639 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1929

of the subcontractor upon the piece of work which the principal contractor has agreed to perform that forms the basis of the statutory relation between the workman and the principal contractor, and, although it does not establish … Clearly they do not, for the reason that Lappielly’s immediate employer, the Electro-Mechanical Company, was not engaged in doing-work which the Long Company had contracted or agreed to perform; but on the contrary, there

Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Messenger

181 Md. 295 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1943

It is now argued that the insured’s damages for breach of contract cannot exceed 8537, as that value was established by the sheriff’s sale. … must possess before he is entitled to express an opinion is a preliminary question which is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the Court of Appeals unless clearly

State v. Mace

5 Md. 337 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1853

We are clearly of opinion it is not. … They regarded it, as it was intended, a protection to the unfortunate, and not an immunity to the criminal.

Quesenberry v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

311 Md. 417 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1988

Believing he qualified for those benefits, Appellant filed a claim with the Retirement Coordinator of the WSSC. … The administrative process has clearly not been completed. Indeed, except for the filing of the claim, *426 it may not have begun in any meaningful sense.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. McCloskey

306 Md. 677 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1986

While Respondent argues that the words ‘Qualified Attorney’ referred to the qualified attorney in the Dominican Republic, it is *683 clear to this Court that a reasonable person reading the ad would be misled into believing … By resident it is meant when he had established his home within the territory of the Republic of Mexico or had resided therein for a minimum of six months before he is entitled to file for a divorce.’ "8 CAL.

Hawks v. Gottschall

241 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1966

not “qualified persons” within the meaning of Code (1957), Article 66)4, Section 150 (g). … His testimony is unequivocal that as of the time of the hearing his intention to stay in Maryland was clearly formed.

Buchholtz v. Hill

178 Md. 280 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1940

Buchholtz, the appellant, attempted to qualify for the office in Cumberland upon a commission from Governor Herbert R. O’Conor and a bond in the amount of $5,000. The County Commissioners, however, appointed R. … established, there is no ground for the issuance of a mandamus.

Jones v. State

336 Md. 255 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 1994

The robbery conviction qualified as a third conviction of a crime of violence. … A legitimate purpose of § 643B(c) is clearly to enhance punishment for criminals who commit additional crimes.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Tatianna B.

417 Md. 259 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 2010

Wyeth, we noted that, under Rule 5-702, “the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” 408 Md. 575, 618 , 971 A.2d 235 … In the present case, the record before Judge Callahan established that the judge did not abuse her discretion in qualifying Ms. McFarlane as an expert in social work, because of Ms.