Case law

Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622

333 Md. 359 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1994

The two women intervenors in the present case are interested in upholding the ordinance, and they clearly have the requisite standing. See Burning Tree Club v. … Subsection (e), however, states as follows: “(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishments

State v. Benjamin F. Bennett Building Co.

154 Md. 159 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1928

of tbe subcontractor upon tbe piece of work wbicb tbe principal contractor has agreed to perform that forms tbe basis of tbe statutory relation between tbe workman and tbe principal contractor, and, altbougb it does not establish … If an employer is wdthin the act to bear its liabilities, he must remain to be accorded its immunities, in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary.

Clayton v. Supreme Conclave

130 Md. 31 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1917

If the word is to be understood in its ordinary sense, as used in wills and such instruments, without anything in the circumstances to qualify its meaning, it is clear he must be excluded. … a distinction is drawn, so far as property rights are concerned, between real and personal property, and a greater strictness is maintained where the title of real estate is involved, but the authorities very generally establish

Mass Transit Administration v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

349 Md. 299 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1998

On-track equipment [OTE] operators must be examined and qualified on the Operating Rules or they must be working under the immediate (on-the-job) supervision of a person who has been examined and qualified on these rules. … When other than CSX on-track equipment is being operated on CSX track, a qualified employee must accompany and direct such equipment.

Evans v. Merriken

8 G. & J. 39 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1836

for in this respect equity follows the law. “ It does not consider the estate of the mortgage as defeated and reduced to a mere lien, but it treats it as a trust estate, and according to the intention of the parties as a qualified … established in his favour.

In Re Application of Mark W.

303 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 1985

.” *4 Rule 14 g places “[t]he burden ... on the petitioner to establish his qualifications for admission under ... … He was held qualified.

F.A.C.E. Trading, Inc. v. Todd

393 Md. 364 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2006

Accordingly, the element of consideration is present as applied to some, and for that reason the game qualifies as an illegal lottery.” … The purchaser could not, at the retail establishment, pay to obtain just bottle caps for the purpose of trying to win cash prizes.

State v. Matusky

343 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 18, 1996

Despite an offer of immunity, Harris refused to testify at Williamson’s trial. Id. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2434 . The State introduced Harris’s hearsay declaration through testimony of the investigating police officer. … Indeed, even if they had, the statement does not appear to qualify under that exception because it was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Rivenbark, 311 Md. at 149 , 533 A.2d at 272 . .

Freeman v. State

487 Md. 420 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 2024

Tellingly, as to each of the above examples of a word having both an everyday meaning and a well-established slang meaning, the Merriam-Webster dictionary includes definitions that encompass both such meanings. … Our holdings in Johnson and Galicia firmly establish the point that where a witness renders an opinion based on specialized knowledge, training, or experience, the witness must be qualified as an expert to do so.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Taylor

465 Md. 76 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2019

Qualified-Terminable-Interest Property, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). … Taylor to Maryland clearly cannot constitute the quid pro quo sufficient to justify the imposition of the estate tax.” Resp. Br. at 18.

Ehrlich v. Perez

394 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2006

The Act ultimately rendered non-qualified aliens ineligible for Federal Medicaid benefits, while also creating two categories for qualified aliens. Ali[e]ssa v. … In doing so, Congress divided the two qualified alien categories into two subcategories: (1) qualified aliens who have resided in the U.S. since a time prior to August 22, 1996. Id.

HON. BERNSTEIN v. State

422 Md. 36 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 22, 2011

The language of Article IV, § 5, however, proves that to be an inaccurate conclusion. *54 Article IV, § 5, which addresses the appointment of circuit court judges, after establishing that only “duly qualified” persons may … Intent Even if the text of the Article IV, § 3, considered in the context of the constitutional scheme established by Article IV, were ambiguous, Judge Bernstein’s construction of the section conflicts with the clearly expressed

Vance v. Vance

286 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1980

Vance’s negligent misrepresentation of his marital status in 1956 was established to the jury’s satisfaction. … We have recognized that a medical witness is ordinarily the only witness qualified to diagnose a physical ailment. Galusca v. Dodd, 189 Md. 666, 668-69 , 57 A.2d 313 (1948).

Conaway v. Deane

401 Md. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 18, 2007

Nor does Lawrence establish as deeply rooted the right to same-sex marriage. … Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), clearly are distinguishable from the present case.

Leser v. Board of Registry

139 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1921

But in this, case it does clearly appear that the objection to the registrar tion of the applicants was. brought directly to the attention of the board and that they formally acted on it. … But whilst it may apply old and long established principles to new uses, it cannot make new law. Ebr can it do what is in effect the same thing, — modify, amend or repeal existing law.

State v. Baltimore Transit Co.

197 Md. 528 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1951

These, from the point of view of the law, were the bounds of her immunity, with perhaps some rare exceptions, survivals for the most part of ancient forms of liability, where conduct is held to be at the peril of the actor … directly from defendant’s negligent act or omission, and resulting in some clearly apparent and substantial physical injury as manifested by an external condition or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological

Chapman v. State

331 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 1993

Clearly, not every alteration of the common law scheme regarding the admissibility of hearsay will violate the Confrontation Clause. … Article 27, § 142(c) does not qualify as a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception. As the Supreme Court has noted, the codification of a hearsay exception does not alone qualify it for a presumption of reliability.

Sporrer v. Ady

150 Md. 60 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1926

The appellant, Matthew Sporrer, duly qualified as administrator of his deceased son, Frederick M. Sporrer, and the appellee, M. Cassandra Ady, qualified as administratrix of her deceased sister, Lyda Ady Sporrer. … A careful study of the record establishes certain facts,, clearly and beyond dispute, viz., that about seven minutes after the accident Mrs.

Brooks v. State

314 Md. 585 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1989

Having established that this robbery must be viewed as one that was committed with a toy gun, we now proceed to explain why it does not qualify as a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” … Vincent argued that the State had failed to establish robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon because it had failed to establish that the “gun” was the automatic, rather than the cap gun.

Kendall v. Housing Authority

196 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2001

But in each instance the court clearly recognized that the claimants were in fact dependent. … Unless this finding was clearly erroneous we are not at liberty to disturb it. *377 We think it was clearly supported by the testimony.