Case law

In Re Mark M.

365 Md. 687 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2001

Maryland, too, has declared a parent’s interest in raising a child to be so fundamental that it “cannot be taken away unless clearly justified.” Boswell v. … qualified person.

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.

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

Davis v. State

38 Md. 15 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1873

The question is, how far does the third section qualify or restrain the language of the first. … The evidence amendment Acts in Great Britain and Maryland, clearly destroy the disqualification from interest,, but still leave the parties to the record incompetent.

Prince George's Cty. v. Concerned Citizens

485 Md. 150 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2023

Concerned Citizens has not established that CB-17 discriminates arbitrarily, either by providing examples of similarly situated properties that CB-17 treats differently or by establishing that its qualifying criteria are … Summary of Legislative History To summarize, the legislative record and various drafts of the Bill clearly establish the following.

Glenn v. Gill

2 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1852

The principle is well established, that the lien which the creditors have is derived entirely through the partners. … The doctrine and the authorities on which it rests, are very clearly stated in the case of Reese and Heylin, vs. Bradford, 13 Alabama, 846.

Oursler v. Tawes

178 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1940

Maryland proposed an amendment to article 15 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Maryland, authorizing the General Assembly to impose taxes on incomes, and providing for the submission of said amendment to the qualified … Abstract comparisons in the application of the many and varied provisions of the Act are urged by the appellants as establishing inequities in its practical effect.

Carlin v. Western Assurance Co. of Toronto, Canada

57 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1882

We think, therefore, that plaintiff's flour mill, driven as it was by steam, and furnished with a middling purifier, bran-duster, belting and other machinery, was clearly a “ manufacturing ’ establishment. ” *527 In this … The defendant’s construction of this condition is, that the use of any kind of material for illumination, but those enumerated in the qualifying or excepting clause recited, is a violation of the policy.

Stoll v. Mayor of Baltimore

163 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1932

We do not think that the *289 facts disclosed by this record are so clearly analogous to the facts in that case as to make it controlling. … sanitary engineer specializing in sanitary engineering pertaining to sewerage work, sewerage disposal, garbage and rubbish collection and disposal, industrial waste material, *291 odors and other kindred departments,” after qualifying

Henthorn v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

226 Md. 499 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 17, 1961

out (at p. 575) that “as a general rule grievance procedures provided by a collective bargaining agreement should be a bar to suits by individuals against the Employer based upon alleged violation of the agreement,” we clearly … The appellant, of course, contends that there was no qualified privilege as a matter of law. We do not agree. In Beeler v.

Bonaparte v. State

63 Md. 465 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1885

validity of private demands may well be inquirable into by the Orphans’ Court, and its sanction of their amount be given or withheld as seems proper; but the exercise of such a supervision over claims for taxes, which are established … applicable tu *475 foreign, municipal or other corporations, whose credit is not identified with that of the State, which, for certain reasons and objects of a special and local nature, may be. disposed to aid them by granting immunity

Wernwag v. Pawling

5 G. & J. 500 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1833

certificate is amply sufficient to establish that fact. … But it ought not to be thus viewed. *510 For the 11th section points clearly to the meaning of the entry judgment ni-si.

Resnick v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY

244 Md. 55 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 14, 1966

Resnick, is a duly qualified candidate in the Democratic Primary Election to be held on September 13, 1966 in Baltimore City for the Maryland House of Delegates. … There-is no expert evidence in the record to establish this and we are of the opinion that this is most unlikely as the spaces reserved for the House of Delegates and the Municipal Court are clearly divided by a separating

Rite Aid Corp. v. Lake Shore Investors

298 Md. 611 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1984

The limitation of “special damages” to pecuniary loss in an injurious falsehood action seems to be the only area with respect to damages that is clearly delineated. … Whether other various losses qualify as special damages depends upon the character of the defamation and the evidence adduced in each case.

Scott v. State

454 Md. 146 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 2017

A jury found that the State had established four qualifying prior convictions, and imposed an enhanced sentence. See id. … Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an appellate court may overrule a case that either was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or “has been superseded by significant changes in the law or facts.”

Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC

433 Md. 170 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2013

The Circuit Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the issue of public official immunity, which we affirmed. … But there is no blanket duty any more than there is blanket immunity.

CX Reinsurance v. Johnson

481 Md. 472 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2022

from suit to owners of “affected properties” who made “qualified offers” of up to $17,000 to persons “at risk” of ingesting lead at the properties. … In that case, we held that the immunity provisions in the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act violated Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id. at 382-83.

Walker v. D'ALESANDRO

212 Md. 163 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1957

(As regards legislative matters, it is usually established under a constitutional provision.) As to executive officers, see Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483 (U. S. Postmaster General) and Matson v. … “Fair comment” is often spoken of (perhaps not entirely accurately) as a matter of qualified privilege, and a qualified privilege cannot be raised on demurrer. See Powell v.

Mazer v. State

212 Md. 60 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1957

The size of the specimen is clearly not controlling. Cf. Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239 . The State showed that Mr. … The appellant’s counsel in his first inquiry clearly differentiated between the fibers and the green substance that the chemist identified.

Ottenberg v. Ryan & Riley Co.

130 Md. 38 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1917

asked in the eighteenth exception can scarcely be said to be one for an expert, even if the witness had been held to be qualified. … It was clearly evidence in chief and was in the discretion of the trial Court, whether it should be admitted at the time.