Case law

Dowling v. Smith

9 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1856

Whilst I hold, with the exception of its 5th section, the act of 1856, to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power, I am still clearly of opinion, that that section is an infraction of the organic law, and in this, that … That issue, when determined by the court below upon the facts, is subject to be reviewed by .this court upon appeal, and the question now is has the issue been established?

Hewitt v. Maryland State Board of Censors

256 Md. 358 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1970

Mueller was qualified as an expert as to literary merit and community standards. He testified in part: “Q. … Kramer was qualified as an expert on the issue of artistic and literary value. His testimony in part was: “Q. (Mr.

Hoffman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Washington County National Savings Bank

297 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 23, 1983

Although the check did not qualify as an attachable credit, we must, nevertheless, determine if the check was otherwise attachable. … The Trust shall not in any manner be liable for, or subject to, the debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements, or torts of any person entitled to benefits hereunder. *706 This language clearly creates a spendthrift trust

Hitchins v. Mayor of Cumberland

208 Md. 134 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1955

It is further provided that the General Assembly shall act in relation to such matters only by general laws applicable to all municipal corporations in any of the several classes to be established. … The law is well established to the contrary. In Willing v. Bozman, 52 Md. 44 , a public local law of Wicomico County was held to have been repealed by a subsequent general law dealing with the same matter.

Thomas v. Hardisty

217 Md. 523 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1958

The first rests upon an alleged fact which is not shown by the bill and it is therefore clearly invalid. The second is little better. … Section 113 by impliedly permitting an application to reopen a decree for lack of jurisdiction *537 or fraud does not say that a decree void for want of jurisdiction is immune from collateral attack.

Hardy v. State

301 Md. 124 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 22, 1984

Section 5.01(2) of the Code lists seven different actions as potential “substantial steps” that can qualify as attempts. … Clearly, applying trial presumptions to determine jurisdiction defeats this purpose.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Guida

391 Md. 33 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 2006

As to Rule 8.4(d), such conduct is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. … Judge Plitt said that the uncontradicted medical evidence established mitigation. If it was established, it had to be by a preponderance as to the entire case. Otherwise, he would have said it had not been established.

Mayor C.C. of Balto. v. Park Corp.

126 Md. 358 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1915

The witness had fully qualified as an expert, and had testified that he was familiar with some contracts for drainage in the area drained by the Callaway sewer. … This evidence was clearly inadmissible. The issue before the Court was not the cost of doing something else, but. the proper compensation for the connection which the City was condemning.

Lowden v. Bosley

395 Md. 58 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 17, 2006

In Pinehaven, the Supreme Court of Idaho examined whether restrictive covenants established for a planned community of single family homes prohibited the short-term rental of the homes. … The new zoning regulations were adopted in August 2003 when Garrett County redefined and regulated homes which qualified as "transient vacation rental units” (TVRU).

Mitchell v. State of Maryland

178 Md. 579 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1940

It will thus be seen that the intent and purpose of the law, as clearly expresed by the statute, is to give to the accused and the State, in all criminal cases in which the right of peremptory challenge is not allowed, and … The appellant was furnished with a list of twenty qualified petit jurors, from which he exercised his right to strike.

Keyes v. State

236 Md. 74 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1964

It was within the province of the trial court to make this determination and we cannot say that it was clearly erroneous in so doing. … We cannot say that said finding was clearly erroneous. The judgment will therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Alexander v. Rose

181 Md. 447 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 1943

Wingert, 134 Md. 523 , 107 A. 345, 346 , established the following proposition: “But the committee of a non compos does not hold the legal title *453 to the property of such non com/pos, and cannot sue in his name as committee … been instituted against the incompetent as defendant no question as to the abatement of the original suit could arise, for upon the death of the incompe *454 tent the provisions of Code, Art. 75, Sec. 29, would have been clearly

National Fire Insurance v. Crane

16 Md. 260 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1860

Without reviewing the evidence, we may say that the learned judge below has demonstrated this very clearly in his opinion. The question then arises, whether Wm. … “A release to qualify a witness must be given before the testimony is closed, or it comes too late.

Ennis v. Crenca

322 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1991

Crenca is an elected official, she clearly falls within the definition of an “employee” under the Act. 4 Montgomery County, being a chartered county, is a “local government.” 5 Whether Ms. … Definitions. ****** “(d) Local government. — ‘Local ‘Local government’means: (1) A chartered county established under Article 25A of the Code; ..." 6 .

Davis v. Board of Education

166 Md. 118 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1934

But, while they should be strictly construed, the purpose and intention of the legislature, when clearly manifested in the statute, should not be defeated by any narrow, strained, forced, or artificial Construction of its … The Act of 1912 was amended by chapter 463 of the Acts of 1914, which established the law as it now stands.

Welbourn v. Kleinle

92 Md. 114 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1900

J., said : “ It is not necessary to establish that there has been actual fraud or imposition practiced by the party holding the confidential or fiduciary relation, the onus being upon him to establish the perfect fairness … This shows the same result, but separates more clearly the statement of the business of the firm from the proposition for settlement.

State v. Waine

444 Md. 692 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2015

Unless we are persuaded that Unger is either “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or “superseded by significant changes in the law,” we must leave the decision standing. DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. … The State *701 concentrates solely on arguing that the decision was clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.

Marwani v. Catering by Uptown

416 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 22, 2010

—To qualify for a license, an applicant shall: (1) Comply with the requirements of this subtitle and the rules and regulations adopted under this subtitle; (2) Agree to permit access to the food establishment for the purpose … There is nothing in the record to suggest that Mary Ann Goyena was not qualified to be the applicant for the license.

Albert v. Mayor of Baltimore

2 Md. 159 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1852

However this may he, we do not feel ourselves called upon to disregard what we conceive to be the clearly expressed purpose of the legislature. … To announce any other doctrine, would be to proclaim a perfect immunity to the bank to assist in the infliction of wrong, provided all knowledge of its unauthorised acts be kept from the party to be injured, until the injustice

Nader for President 2004 v. Maryland State Board of Elections

399 Md. 681 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2007

In other words, the uniform, statewide registry is the official registry of who qualifies to vote in this State, and, thus, who qualifies to sign a nominating petition. … It is a procedure established by the State Board.