Case law

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.

Baltimore University v. Colton

64 L.R.A. 108 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1904

it is conceded, been deprived zvithout notice. *636 Of course if one voluntarily becomes a member of an incorporated society or association whose by-laws provide for expulsion for specified causes the right of amotion is clearly … established in the corporate body and may be duly exercised in/the manner and for the purposes prescribed, (High on Ex.

Candella v. Subsequent Injury Fund

277 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1976

The most significant fact, perhaps, is that appellant related the history to the psychiatrist knowing that it was merely for the purpose of qualifying him as a witness on her behalf. … Clearly, the statements on which the physician’s conclusions were based cannot withstand the close scrutiny of hearsay testimony mandated by our prior decisions.

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

Prince George's Cty. v. Concerned Citizens

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 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.

Beall v. State Ex Rel. Jenkins

131 Md. 669 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1917

From the establishment of the first Constitution of Maryland—and it might be said before that date —until the adoption of this Article its people had lived under a well recognized form of representative self-government. … There are exceptions, notably those embraced in the sixth section, which indicate clearly that it was not intended that the provisions of the Article should apply to all legislation.

Boland v. Boland

423 Md. 296 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2011

In fact they are better qualified in this regard than are corporate directors in general. … [We] submit that just as a litigant can readily find an “independent, qualified and objective expert” to support any position, a competent director may also find an “independent, qualified, and competent business person”

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.

Arrington v. Department of Human Resources

402 Md. 79 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 2007

Roll and Scholl involved criminal contempts—the refusal of two witnesses to testify before a grand jury, even though offered immunity against prosecution for what they might say. … Although the text of the Rule does not explicitly bar incarceration if the defendant is then unable to meet the purge, case law, confirmed by the Committee Note attached to the Rule, clearly does, and the Rule must be read

Wilson v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

273 Md. 296 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1974

Wilson filed his suit August 16, 1974, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City as “a resident, taxpayer and qualified voter of Baltimore City,” saying he was “interested in the economic well-being, culture and vitality of … A statute is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32, 48 , 300 A. 2d 367 (1973).

Veney v. State

251 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 15, 1968

As heretofore indicated, the procedure used in this case was to first obtain a panel of jurors held to be qualified to serve. Upon the panel so established each side then exercised its peremptory challenges. … That case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that case the pre-trial proceedings were covered live from the court room and parts of the trial were also filmed. We regard Seidman v.

Poultney v. Tiffany

112 Md. 630 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 1910

Two fundamental principles of construction however have been firmly established in all jurisdictions administering the principles of the common law: first, that the law favors the early vesting of' estates, and that the Courts … Handy , he receded from or qualified his opinion in Larmour v. Rich , or regai*ded these cases as in any manner conflicting, ong with the other.

Milliman, Inc. v. Maryland State Retirement & Pension System

421 Md. 130 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 20, 2011

plan, established on July 1, 1969; and (ii) the noncontributory plan, established on April 7, 1904; (5) the Legislative Pension Plan; (6) the Local Fire and Police System, established on July 1, 1989; (7) the Law Enforcement … Officers’ Pension System, established on July 2, 1990; (8) the State Police Retirement System, established on July 1, 1949; (9) the Teachers’ Pension System, established on January 1, 1980; *139 (10) the Teachers' Retirement

Polakoff v. Turner

385 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 2005

The issue of what qualifies as “reasonable” will, as it does in all negligence cases, depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. … Boblitz, 296 Md. 242, 275 , 462 A.2d 506, 522 (1983) (abrogating interspousal immunity in negligence cases— decision applicable to the case before the court and causes of action accruing or discovered after the date of the

Jewell v. Malamet

322 Md. 262 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 1991

of a Health Claims Arbitration Office, headed by a Director; the procedure for filing claims, the appointment of arbitrators and their immunity from suit; the arbitration of a claim; judicial review by an aggrieved party … We related our belief to the case before us: In this case, as we so clearly indicated in Oxtoby v.

Wilson v. State

363 Md. 333 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2001

In order to establish a Brady violation, Petitioner must establish “(1) that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence that is (2) favorable to the defense — either because it is exculpatory, provides a basis for mitigation … The hearing judge’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The actual terms of the plea agreements were never disclosed to Petitioner by the State either before or during the trial.

Stahl v. Emery

147 Md. 123 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1925

These two- antithetical definitions clearly mark the line which must be followed in construing -the will now before the court. … There is nothing to he found in the four corners of the will which in any way defines, explains, interprets or qualifies the words “our children.”

Hub Bel Air, Inc. v. Hirsch

203 Md. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1973

The court found that *643 this chain of title, together with testimony of a qualified surveyor, established paper title to the strip in dispute in the appellant, and it is not seriously disputed that there was evidence to … We cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding title by adverse possession in the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Mayor of Cumberland v. Willison

50 Md. 138 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1878

Certain general principles *148 seem, however, to have been clearly settled by the current and weight of judicial authority. … actually taken, for consequential damages to his premises, even though in grading and leveling the street a portion of the adjoining lot in consequence of the removal of its natural support falls into the highway, and the same immunity

Zantzinger v. Ribble

36 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 1872

Underwood, Judge of said District, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the 14th section of the Act of Congress, entitled ‘An Act to establish a *35 uniform system of Bankruptcy throughout the United States, approved … The cause of action and original judgment were clearly antecedent to the’application in bankruptcy and assignment, and as such passed by operation of law to the assignee, subject to all the rights of the bankrupt to have