Case law

Kennerly v. Mayor of Baltimore

247 Md. 601 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 1967

Clearly, the appellants have shown no standing to appeal as aggrieved persons. Their claim that they had standing in the City Court and have standing here as taxpayers likewise must fail. … The City admitted only facts of record, meaning, we take it, facts established in the record before the Board.

Silver v. Goldberger

231 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 1963

While a person may not be restrained from engaging in any business or vocation (useful to the community) which he is qualified to conduct or perform, the general rule is that restrictive covenants in a contract of employment … It is also apparent that the refusal of the chancellor to retry the points that had been previously tried and decided, was clearly not improper.

Anne Arundel Cty. v. Reeves

474 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2021

This case clearly does not involve fraud, and the jury expressly found that Officer Price did not act with actual malice, i.e. … Code Ann., Insurance § 5-201(j)(“Except for fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence, a qualified actuary is not liable for damages . . .”); Md.

Warner v. Sprigg

62 Md. 14 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1884

Two of the persons named as trustees and executors refused to qualify as executors and to accept the trusts of the will. The third one, Edward J. … In this deed they use many expressions, which show very clearly that it was their intention that he was to hold the legal title in trust for the grantors.

State v. M. Fox & Son

79 Md. 514 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1894

negligence, in respect of a contract, brought by parties with whom he has not contracted, by a stranger, by any one of the public at large who may be injured by such deceit or negligence,” although this statement is somewhat qualified … This is approved of in Cooley on Torts,481 (1st ed),where it is also said that the fraud would not only be morel censurable, but more clearly actionable, if that which is exposed to injury by the concealment is the health

Kiser v. Eberly

200 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1952

A copy of the official survey from the land office establishes their exact boundaries and quantities of land. … So, here, the identity of the hotel site being fixed, the city and county records establish the boundaries and quantity. This contract then clearly identified the subject of it.

ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. Mandel

316 Md. 197 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1989

William Lerner, a qualified expert in substance abuse and iatrogenic narcotic addiction, that “the drug dilaudid is one of the most potent prescription drugs known to medicine.” … Lerner’s testimony, claiming that it failed to establish the necessary causal connection because Dr. Lerner did not personally examine Mandel nor discuss his addiction with him.

Doe v. Alternative Medicine Maryland, LLC

455 Md. 377 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2017

AMM pointed out that medical cannabis can be dispensed only by a qualifying physician to a qualifying patient. … AMM clearly has interests that are adverse to the Growers.

State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti

365 Md. 428 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2001

Antonetti executed a supplemental pay authorization form for John in 1988 establishing an hourly pay rate of $6.25. … The record clearly shows that these individuals were compensated and did in fact benefit economically as a result of Respondent’s actions. 5.

Blake v. Stump

10 L.R.A. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1890

The word “simply” was unnecessary, but qualified and explained as it was by those other instructions we have mentioned, we do not think that was sufficient entirely to condemn the instruction. … We are clearly of opinion that there was some evidence in support of the contention that Stump was acting for both Blake and Fowler, without the knowledge of Blake.

Prince George's Cty. v. Concerned Citizens

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2023

Concerned Citizens has not established that CB-17 discriminates arbitrarily, either by providing examples of similarly situated properties that CB-17 treats differently or by establishing that its qualifying criteria are … Summary of Legislative History To summarize, the legislative record and various drafts of the Bill clearly establish the following.

Everhart v. State

274 Md. 459 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1975

Although in Calandra the respondent had been subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure, he was before a grand jury as a witness, under an offer of a grant of immunity, and even though the Court held that as such … Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, at 591 (2d ed. 1974).

Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County

374 Md. 20 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2003

Article 2 §§ 5-101 et seq. of the Anne Arundel County Code establish the County’s “Self-Insurance Fund,” provide for an annual appropriation to the Fund, and establish a “Self-Insurance Fund Committee” to review and approve … Wolfe also acknowledges “that Ziegler did not qualify as an ‘Insured’ as defined” in paragraph one of the self-insurance regulations (id. at 22).

Baltimore County Department of Education v. Henry A. Knott, Inc.

234 Md. 417 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1964

The Court pointed out that to establish the limitation period earlier would be to deprive labor *425 and material people working on the $3,500 uncompleted items of any rights under the bond. … opinion states he found that final acceptance took place either on the date that Baker named in his letter, or “on December 1, 1961 in accordance with the Architect’s Certificate,” and “it [the architect’s certificate] clearly

Murray v. Curlett

228 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1962

True, it is a case involving the separation of church and state, but we think it is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … In that case the Court was concerned with the compulsion which required a non-believer to profess a belief in God in order to qualify for public office.

State Ex Rel. Parr v. Board of County Commissioners

207 Md. 91 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1955

No governmental *100 immunity is claimed by any of the parties here. … Turney, 177 Md. 297 , 9 A. 2d 561 , in qualifying the duty to keep public streets and highways in a reasonably safe condition, at pages 308 and 309: “But in Hagerstown v.

Maryland Co-Operative Milk Producers, Inc. v. Miller

170 Md. 81 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 1935

handled within the State for fluid consumption wheresoever produced. * * * “(h) To require the butter fat content of milk and cream received by the distributors from producers to be determined by independent laboratories or qualified … In our opinion the principle which forbids the delegation by the General Assembly of its legislative authority is clearly applicable to the proposal by the Milk Control Act to make the practical use and effectiveness of its

Keedy v. Long

5 L.R.A. 759 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1889

The contract between these parties was clearly for a definite period — a scholastic year — and not one merely at will. … The terms used in the letters quoted are sufficient to establish this, apart from any reference to the nature of the employment, and the character of the services agreed to be performed.

Luskin's, Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division

353 Md. 335 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 1999

The Sterling Drug court restated certain well-established rules. … The final order established a claims procedure for the administration of the relief ordered.

Patterson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.

133 Md. 276 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1918

The general rule is that a declaration sought to-be proved must have been contemporaneous with the event established as the principal act; but in order to constitute declarations a part of the res gestae, it is not necessary … The effect of the ruling below on this question was clearly harmful to the plaintiff’s case in view of the conflict of the testimony as to how and when the fire started.