Case law

State v. Milburn

9 Gill 105 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1850

It is, on the contrary, a necessary incident to sovereignty in every government, based upon sound policy, and creates the exception in favor of the State to those general rules that are established for the rest of the community … and whether such intention may be clearly deduced from language expressly used, or inferred, by necessary implication, from the whole tenor and character of the law?

State v. Baker

453 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Id. at 508 n.24, 98 S.Ct. 824 (citing Downum , 372 U.S. 734 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 ); see also In re Mark R. , 294 Md. at 262 , 449 A.2d 393 ("[T]he cases clearly establish that a deficiency in the prosecution's evidence, whether … Rule 2-512(f)(1) ("The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order previously designated by the trial judge and

In Re Formal Inquiry Concerning Judge Diener

268 Md. 659 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1973

Art. 40, § 45, which gave to the Commission the power to administer oaths, to subpoena witnesses, to require the production of evidence, and to grant immunity. … Since both Judges Diener and Broccolino were in office on November 3, 1970, each for a term exceeding four years, the Commission’s jurisdiction clearly extended to each of them.

State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2025

In other words, a circuit court reviewing “content and arrangement” could ask whether the ballot material at issue was qualified, not whether it should have qualified. … Ambridge and the circuit court that the charter amendment could have been drafted better or written more clearly.

Crockett v. Davis

81 Md. 134 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1895

Pritchard comes within the rule sought to be established by the appellees. His evidence was in some respects contradictory, but that was clearly for the jury and not for the Court to pass upon. … Miss Dinsmore said that she “considered that both mentally and physically she was a wreck” — although she afterwards qualified it somewhat.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ross

428 Md. 50 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

Ross was to establish for them. However, Mr. Ross took no further steps to establish any trust for the Murphys. After the Murphys obtained the $85,000 bank check — and possibly at the July 29, 2008, DSS hearing — Mr. … The Commission is not responsible for prosecuting alleged violations of probation and does not have the power to grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

Kolper v. State

240 Md. 139 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 1965

The area in front of the Jnn was clearly illuminated by a street light so that Mr. Sevison could see clearly all of the action which took place. He then called the police who arrived within a few minutes. … Although the appellant was found not guilty on this count, it is well established that it is not necessary that a defendant be convicted of a felony to have the existence of probable cause to arrest.

Peterson v. State

281 Md. 309 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1977

The circumstances shown by the facts set out in the affidavit before the court clearly showed, it determined, that there was a continuous violation by Washburn of the Laws. Id. at 195. In Andresen v. State, 24 Md. … See also 2 Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 426-431 (2d ed. 1974); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure § 161 (12th ed. 1974); 68 Am. Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures § 70 (1973); Annot., 100 A.L.R.2d 522 (1965).

American Fire Insurance v. Brooks

83 Md. 22 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 1896

Kelley’s letter does not clearly appear; but probably, it was the fifth'day of December, for on that day he wrote to Mr. Kelley: “Your favor of November 29th, addressed to our company at Bosley, Gates Co., N. … The purpose of the provision could not have been to take from the insurance company the power to appoint an agent by parol, and thereby in many cases to secure immunity from the consequences of its own acts.

Brinsfield v. Howeth

107 Md. 278 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1908

Cutter, supra, was clearly not privileged. … Most of them may be disposed of by the application to the facts of simple and well established rules.

State, Use of Holt v. Try, Inc.

220 Md. 270 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1959

It is difficult to conceive of action that would more clearly demonstrate the legislative will and intention. … We are not called upon to decide, and therefore express no opinion upon, whether an illegitimate child of a deceased father could qualify under Section 4 as “any person related to the deceased by blood or marriage” who is

Brown v. Bragunier

79 Md. 234 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1894

The method of that certification is minutely and clearly defined in the Code, and in subsequent Acts of Assembly amendatory thereof. … character of the return which the law requires to be made to the Governor being thus distinctly defined by the statute, it is clear that if no such return was in fact made, the relator’s right to a commission has not been established

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Dove

413 Md. 70 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 17, 2010

Clearly, an injury that, if left untreated, could lead to a permanent loss of function or deformity is of the type that requires urgent medical care. … The person administering the test must be a "qualified medical person” or a "qualified person” as defined by §§ 10-304(a)(2) and (3) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, and the test must be administered using

In the Matter of Isely

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2025

The TSP is established in subchapter III of the applicable chapter. Mr. … We will not read a statutory cross-reference to the order of precedence to overcome Congress’s clearly indicated intent to omit subchapter III from the application of § 8470(a).

Groff v. Rohrer

35 Md. 327 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 1872

Hill on Trustees, 97, 98, very clearly recognizes the distinction. He says, “ the rule respecting resulting trusts is not of universal application. … The rule is operative in equity, as well as at law, that parol evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, qualify, extend, or vary a written instrument, except in such cases.

Brodsky v. Hull

196 Md. 509 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1950

Had the real estate agent written the word “about” instead of the words “more or less”, the case would fall clearly within the decision in Baltimore Permanent B. & L. Society v. … The chancellor said this established the law of the State, but he added the significant words: “There may no doubt be cases in which the deficiency, from its magnitude, would raise the presumption of fraud, imposition or

Manders v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.

147 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1925

This language clearly created a “spendthrift trust.” … It is true that the case was decided before “spendthrift trusts” were established in Maryland (see Smith v.

Crouse v. State

57 Md. 327 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1881

The State, 42 Md., 83 , establishes the validity of this law, if the same has been properly voted on, and accepted by the voters of Prince George’s County, to whom it was to be submitted ; but the appellant contends, that … This ruling also was clearly right. “ Where the question arises collaterally, and not in a direct proceeding to try the title to the office, the correctness of the decision of the canvassers cannot be called in question,

Lustine v. State Roads Commission

221 Md. 322 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 1960

Although it was clearly shown in the first trial of the case that the purpose of the acquisition was to construct a controlled access arterial highway and this fact was specifically noted in our opinion in the prior appeal … We have examined the testimony which the appellants claim establishes such action on the part of the Commission, namely, pp. 2, 3 and 6-10 of the record extract, and we fail to discover any arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable

Baltimore Permanent Building & Land Society v. Smith

54 Md. 187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1880

But what is the force and effect of the qualifying words “about sixty-five acres” in this contract? Does it import that quantity was not a material part of the contract ? … In the case of a breach of a contract to convey land, a different rule was established in England at a very early day. In Flurean vs. Thornhill, 2 Wm.