Case law

Silberman v. Jacobs & Silberman

259 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1970

Whiteley, 98 Md. 430 , 56 A. 823 (1904) but, in our opinion, that case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. … Carter, 132 Md. 577 , 104 A. 530 (1918) — whereas the Act of 1969, Ch. 3 is clearly intended to be retroactive.

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.

Young v. State

370 Md. 686 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2002

The finding that a defendant qualifies as an offender subjects him or her to the registration requirements of the statute at the time of release. … The court found that the intent of the Utah Legislature, in enacting the statute allowing for Internet notification, clearly was to establish a civil remedy. See id. at 1249 .

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.

Flaks v. Clark

143 Md. 377 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1923

vaudeville theatre on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the Oity of Baltimore, called the Lincoln Theatre, which “caters exclusively to colored patrons”; that the plaintiff has conducted said theatre for more than ten years, and has established … This construction clearly does not impute to the plaintiff a refusal or failure to pay his honest debts, or dishonesty or insolvency, or any mismanagement of his theatre calculated to injure or prejudice him or his business

State v. Payne & Bond

440 Md. 680 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2014

The attorneys for Payne and Bond objected to Detective Edwards’s testimony arguing, inter alia, that he should have been qualified as an expert. … Clearly, Detective Edwards’s testimony had significance in the present case.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Snyder

406 Md. 21 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2008

Carmona was eligible to qualify for cancellation of removal, Mr. Snyder failed to advise Mr. … Carmona was eligible to qualify for cancellation of removal, Mr. Snyder failed to advise Mr.

Duncan and Smith v. State

276 Md. 715 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1976

It perceived a special problem in establishing standing in cases similar to that before it, “[s]ince narcotics charges like those in [that] indictment may be established through proof solely of possession of narcotics [as … To deny standing to the defendant because he did not testify to a possessory interest and thereby acquire the immunity granted in Simmons is to substitute ritual for reality.” Id. at 98); and Commonwealth v.

Wildwood Medical Center, L.L.C. v. Montgomery County

405 Md. 489 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2008

The Tax Court ruled that the transfer qualified for the exemption, and the ruling was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. … Through this well-established principle, partnerships can be discerned from “surrounding circumstances.” Vlamis v.

Langston v. Riffe

359 Md. 396 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2000

The Act is clearly not procedural in nature. It neither creates nor alters any procedure for establishing or adjudicating paternity. … Md. 303 , 648 A.2d 439 , once the declaration became final, in the sense that it was no longer subject to review on appeal or pursuant to a timely filed motion under Rule 2-534 or 2-535(a), the finding of paternity was immune

Hodgson v. Payson

3 H. & J. 339 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1813

As to the other parts, there are some points so clearly established, as not to. admit of any doubt, and others, (and among them the one most material,) that are more questionable. When the complainant delivered R. … It appears clearly, that " after the delivery of tlie bill on Ólemenisdn to R.

Stanley v. State

390 Md. 175 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2005

for a person who illegally possesses a firearm and has certain qualifying convictions for crimes of violence or certain controlled dangerous substances” and the Senate version declaring, “The bill establishes a felony that … On the contrary, unless the illegal possession of the firearm is established by proof of a “violation classified as a felony,” the establishment of the crime of violence under § 441(e) could not trigger the enhanced punishment

In the Matter of Judge Nickerson

473 Md. 509 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2021

Pursuant to that authority, this Court has established the position of Investigative Counsel. See Md. Rule 18-411(e). … The judicial disciplinary system established by the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Rules does not work if judges fail to cooperate with disciplinary investigations or comply with the terms and conditions established

Cover v. Myers

75 Md. 406 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1892

the like immunity His own title and right would be impaired if any restrictions were placed upon his power of disposition. … But such an instruction would have been wholly unwarranted, and the Court therefore was clearly right in refusing it.

Horne v. Lyeth

4 H. & J. 431 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 15, 1818

In such a case the general effect, or natural and legal import .of the-word “heirs,” would be altered, abridged or qualified, by such subsequent express words of limitation annexed to them. So where heirs of the body! … In this case the words “heirs male” were qualified by the appended expressions “now living,” and C was clearly referred to, and designated under the character of presumptive heir Burchet vs. Durdant, 2 Ventries, 311.

Triggs v. State

382 Md. 27 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2004

The capped fine of $10,000 and maximum punishment of three years was changed to an approach that more clearly penalized the abuser for each offense. … Pursuant to Section 4-506, therefore, Petitioner clearly was ordered to have no contact whatsoever with Mrs. Triggs.

Halliday v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.

368 Md. 186 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 2002

City of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51 , 405 A.2d 255 (1979) (declining to abrogate common law doctrine of governmental immunity in tort actions); Howard v. … Bishop Byrne Council Home, 249 Md. 233 , 238 A.2d 863 (1968) (declining to alter common law rule of charitable immunity); Creaser v.

Johns v. Hodges

60 Md. 215 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1883

The right of challenge itself is a safeguard *222 provided by law in contemplation of the contingency that the officers whose duty it is to select only qualified persons have failed in the. performance of that duty. … of sanity raised by the law in favor of Johns’ soundness of mind, and that proof of his insanity “rests upon the caveators, and nothing short of establishing that fact to the satisfaction of the jury will entitle them to

Hitchins Bros. v. Mayor of Frostburg

68 Md. 100 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1887

Y., 470 , “a municipal corporation has no greater right than an individual to collect the surface water from its lands- or streets into an artificial channel, and discharge it upon the land of another, nor has it any immunity … In the case just mentioned, it was not said or intimated that the practice was so established as to forbid the exercise of the discretion of the Court below over the subject, and that the refusal to allow the pleadings to

Reed v. State

283 Md. 374 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1978

Clearly, this is dependent on the particular circumstances of each case. … This may be evidenced by a qualified expert. C. The witness using the apparatus as the source of his testimony must be one qualified for its use by training and experience.