Case law

Shub v. Simpson

196 Md. 177 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1950

The question of the validity of Sec. 15 is now clearly raised before us by parties who have a direct interest in its decision. … to hold office, was to secure *189 to voters or electors the right to vote for those qualified under the charter(Emphasis supplied.)

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

Deems v. State

127 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1916

There is nothing in the record to qualify the *629 significance of this action or to enable us to say that it was not understood by the jury according to its apparent purpose as a direction that their verdict should leave … This objection was properly overruled: The evidence shows clearly that the confession was not influenced by any promise, threat or inducement of any kind.

Hines v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

305 Md. 369 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1986

Section 541 provides that “[i]n no case shall the uninsured motorist coverage be less than the coverage afforded a qualified person under Article 48A, §§ 243H and 243-1.” … This contention is clearly without merit. As Chief Judge Murphy observed for the Court in Aragona v. St. Paul Fire and Mar.

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.

Greenstein v. Meister

279 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1977

When the voluminous expert testimony in this case is considered in its entirety, it clearly permits an inference that the conscious pain and suffering experienced by Mr. … The hospital records themselves establish that only four of the original seven units of carefully screened blood that had been allocated for Mr.

Sloan v. Edwards

61 Md. 89 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1883

Such mode of examination Was certainly a departure from what has been the long established practice in this State. … All this was clearly inadmissible, and should have been rejected. 6.

Bohnert v. State

312 Md. 266 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1988

It was clearly apparent that the State’s case hinged solely on the testimony of Alicia. There was no physical evidence to support her story. … We have never indicated that a person can qualify as an “expert in credibility,” no matter what his experience or expertise.

Chesapeake Publishing Corp. v. Williams

339 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 1995

In Maryland, there exists a qualified privilege to report on legal proceedings, even if the story contains defamatory material, as long as the account is fair and substantially accurate. … We believe that the publication, if taken as a whole, is a fair and substantially accurate account of what has clearly been a protracted and complex court proceeding.

Southern Management Corp. v. Kevin Willes Construction Co.

382 Md. 524 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 20, 2004

Clearly in the eyes of the *537 Court, a lien should be established and attached as a matter of law.... … Lynn, vice president of Jost, who was qualified as an expert in “construction and renovation” and "demolition.” 10 .

Janice M. v. Margaret K.

404 Md. 661 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 19, 2008

Clearly, I believe [Janice M.] did do that. “There’s no question that the second prong is met. The third party must have lived with the child. … We did not determine or conclude that a person who qualifies as a de facto parent is not required, per se, to establish exceptional circumstances.

Tiller Construction Corp. v. Nadler

334 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1994

companies: It is, I would note, fairly common in this State for builders who are within the State, who fail to get home improvement licenses, to be denied the right to recover on their contracts because our statutes say very clearly … But the type of activity, including construction of a building, may not, standing alone, suffice to establish that the corporation is doing intrastate business in Maryland. V Tiller appealed.

Potter v. Bethesda Fire Department, Inc.

309 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1987

Section 21(a)(2) and § 33(c), read together, show that “quasi-public corporation” is clearly intended to be of this genus. … A fire and rescue commission was established, § 21-4B(a).

Jay v. Michael

82 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1895

But this clause is again qualified and limited by adding “ and which said farm or parcel of land is particularly described in a deed from Priscilla Presbury” and others. … The Court was clearly right in refusing to permit the plot with accompanying description to be put in evidence.

Stein v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

127 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1915

This provision clearly contemplated that the payments should be made by instalments, and not in a single lump sum. The case of Cooley v. Kelley, 96 N. E. 642 , which arose under the will of Wm. J. … No argument will be necessary to establish this fact; it sufficiently appears from the supplementary answer of Robert M.

Dejarnette v. State

478 Md. 148 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2022

requirements” because “test results produced by a qualified person using certified equipment in a timely manner are prima facie reliable.” … Dejarnette argues that, to the extent that the circuit court made such a finding, the finding was clearly erroneous.

Riley v. Venice Beach Citizens Ass'n

487 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2024

It also found that the circuit court’s denial of Bay Pride’s Large Section claim was not clearly erroneous. … As explained, in my view, the prior grant of summary judgment was not qualified under Maryland Rule 2-501(g).

Wireless One v. Mayor & Cty. Cncl. of Balt.

465 Md. 588 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2019

It clearly was not. … The plain language of the exemption in RP § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) is unambiguous and clearly precludes Wireless One from qualifying as a “displaced person.” We begin by examining the language of the exemption.

Volos, Ltd. v. Sotera

264 Md. 155 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1972

A motion was duly made and seconded to reject the proposed qualified stock option plan. Mr. … The general rule is well established in this state that a wrongfully discharged employee is entitled to recover damages to the extent of the stipulated salary for the stipulated period, less the amount he actually earned

Gaver v. Gaver

176 Md. 171 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1939

He is an executor if he qualified. I suppose he qualified. Q. Don't you know he has qualified? A. I presume he has. Q. Don't you know he has? A. Well under the terms of the will. Q. That doesn't answer the question. A. … Ordinarily courts of equity will not interfere in the administration of estates by a probate court, except *Page 190 to remedy some evil or establish some right which such courts are powerless to grant or establish.