Case law

Bradford v. Jones

1 Md. 351 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1851

This service was clearly not rendered, because the tax was never collected. … The principles established in Jones vs. Shore, 1 Wheat., 462 , do not apply to the claim of the clerk in this case.

Meola v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

246 Md. 226 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1967

Generally, under the usual grievance procedure of a collective bargaining agreement, the employer is entitled to immunity from suit by individual employees if the grievance procedure is properly followed, but the employee … He did not allege in the declaration nor in his opposing affidavit that he is qualified for any other employment or that there was other work available which he could perform and was willing to accept.

Lamone v. Lewin

460 Md. 450 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2018

The Court held that the withdrawal deadline was “inapplicable in a case where it clearly cannot apply.” … The March 9th deadline established by EL § 5-601(1)(ii) and EL § 5-504(b) clearly prevents the State Board from being aware, i.e., knowing of the disqualification of a candidate, and nonetheless allowing the candidate’

Sanza v. Maryland State Board of Censors

245 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1967

Through the entire film, each woman writhes in various poses, clearly inviting and then simulating sexual in *328 tercourse. … He had viewed the films, and testified that : “Clearly to my thinking the dominant theme and my professional statement of the films was the visual selling of sexual and neurotic pleasure * * * the intent as I perceived it

Johnson v. Luers

129 Md. 521 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1916

I had established a desk right next to Mr. Hardy, and I was there all the time. When Mr. Almoney would bring bills up in instalments he would hand them to Mr. Hardy and Mr. … and published as law by authority, the presumption is, that all the constitutional solemnities and prerequisites necessary to its valid enactment have been complied with; and this presumption exists until the contrary is clearly

Erhardt v. Baltimore Monthly Meeting of Friends, Park Ave.

93 Md. 669 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 1901

The devise in this case was to the Society of Friends to be used for one of its recognized and clearly defined corporate purposes. … there being but little doubt, that as friends unite and cherish a disposition of liberality, for the assistance of each other, in this interesting work, they will be enabled to make such provision, as would encourage well qualified

Lindsay v. Stemper

166 Md. 257 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1934

“Prosecute” as there used clearly means to take, order or enter an appeal, as well as to carry on an appeal which has already been taken either by the “receiver, trustee or other beneficiary.” … Without the statute no such right would exist, and the limiting clause refers to and qualifies the enabling clause which alone grants the right.

Crook Horner Co. v. Gilpin

112 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1910

On the part of the plaintiffs it is contended that they are entitled to a judgment against the defendant with a perpetual stay of execution in order to establish a liability against the surety notwithstanding the fact that … The facts of the case said the Court clearly distinguish it from the case of Hill v. Harding, supra, and from the other cases cited.

School Commissioners v. School Commissioners

35 Md. 201 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1872

The Acts of 1865, 1868 and 1870, providing for a general system of education in the State, treat the county school funds as separate and distinct from the revenue to be raised by general or local taxation, and clearly recognize … But this is true only in a qualified sense.

Symington v. Graham

165 Md. 441 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1933

The burden was upon the plaintiff to establish this causal connection. … So, the only evidence of probative force on this record fails to establish a sufficient connection of the accident with the malady of the plaintiff on July 3rd, but tends to establish an opposite conclusion.

Aero Motors, Inc. v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Administration

274 Md. 567 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1975

The federal-state dichotomy was clearly pointed out in Sav-A-Lot, supra. … Such a statute is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity; every intendment is in favor of the validity of the statute where there is a substantial

Howard Sports Daily, Inc. v. Public Service Commission

179 Md. 355 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1941

However, the evidence clearly showed that the appellant’s business was to furnish news of such a nature and in such a manner that the recipients would be expected to use it for an illegal purpose. … The adjudications of the Commission are prima facie correct, and the courts ascribe to them the strength due to judgments of a tribunal established by law and informed by *365 experience.

Harris v. Arlen Properties, Inc.

256 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1969

Vol. 7) Art. 75, § 96, except Delton, which having qualified to do business in Maryland was served through its resident agent. … Finally, as to Arlen Properties, Inc., it was established that this defendant was not qualified to do business in Maryland; that it is a New York corporation and does not have an office in Maryland; that all negotiations

Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. State Department of Assessment & Taxation

252 Md. 173 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1969

In our opinion, Atlantic has successfully established all three of the essential elements. … The General Assembly could have added these words, but the plain fact is that it chose not to add such qualifying language.

Smith v. State

480 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2022

The plain language of FI § 11-605(a) and (b) establishes that individuals with felony convictions may not qualify for a mortgage loan originator’s license unless seven years separate the date of the felony conviction and … FI § 11-605, as originally enacted, established that mortgage loan originators had to “become licensed with the Commissioner of Financial Regulation[,]” and “[t]o qualify for a license, an applicant [had to] satisfy the

Kopp v. Schrader

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2018

In that regard, we note that it was the State that raised the sovereign immunity defense, to an action that clearly alleged a right to back pay for employment based solely on written documents and that it should have been … That is how a system of checks and balances works.2 Conditions on Budget Appropriations and the Bayne Criteria As the Majority opinion indicates, it is well-established that, pursuant to Article III, §52(

County Commissioners v. Beulah

153 Md. 221 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1927

He clearly remembers having been told of it on Saturday uight, and there is testimony of his having been told early on Friday afternoon, as he was passing along the street. … The questions whether contributory negligence- of the *226 child’s father could affect the child’s right of recovery, and, if it could, whether his negligence was so clearly established that a verdict should have been directed

Jacques v. First National Bank

307 Md. 527 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1986

The Bank declined this request, explaining that the application, read in light of the contract, was for the maximum loan for which the applicants would qualify, and the Bank had determined that the Jacques qualified for a … The inducement of a guaranteed rate of interest for a period of ninety days, especially in a time of fluctuating interest rates, clearly is intended to entice the customer to deal with the offering bank rather than with some

State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

342 Md. 586 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 1996

Of course, “the general rule is that a person may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities.” Clark v. … The order issued to the Baltimore City Board was clearly not a lawful order; it directly contradicted the applicable statutory scheme.

Glen Burnie Improvement Ass'n v. State Appeal Board

213 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1957

, illegal, capricious or unreasonable-acts; but in exercising that power care must be taken not to-interfere with the legislative prerogative, or with the exercise-of sound administrative discretion, where discretion is clearly … Its interest is not established by whatever may be the interest of its members (Windsor Hills Improvement Ass’n v.