Case law

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

State v. Carter

200 Md. 255 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 2001

The indictment in this case is captioned: “Malfeasance in Office”, but as the Court of Appeals of Georgia has well said in a similar situation: “* * * it is well established by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and … The defendants are clearly informed that they are jointly charged with taking im *268 proper bail bonds from certain persons in violation of their duties.

Gayety Books, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore

279 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 1977

It required licensing for each “peep show establishment”, 2 § 1491, and a license for each coin-operated motion picture device, § 1496. … Establishments having fifteen or more coin-operated devices, licensed under Article 15, § 71 (a) (1), qualify for licensure as an amusement arcade under Article 15, § 71 (b), and must pay an annual fee of $1200.00. 3 No evidence

State v. Petrushansky

183 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 1944

There is, of course, a well known rule that where there are two possible constructions, and one of them makes a statute of doubtful constitutionality, courts will adopt that view of the enactment which establishes it free … In our view of these cases, however, we do not have to invoke this rule, because we think the obvious purposes of the law and the method Of its adoption show clearly its meaning and intent.

Diehl v. State

294 Md. 466 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 1982

Diehl’s speech also cannot qualify as a loud and unseemly noise under the first proscription. … Although evidence indicates that Diehl uttered one swear word, the statute clearly states that not all such words are proscribed. Only words that also qualify as profane are prohibited.

Blackburn v. Beall

21 Md. 208 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1864

The intimation, that the object of the testimony was to establish forgery or fraud, does not fake it out of the reason of the rule, on the contrary, th& *234 higher the crime or deeper the fraud, sought to be established, … The proposition is stated still more clearly in Wells & Miller, vs. Turner, 16 Md. Rep., 142 .

Tillinghast v. Lamp

168 Md. 34 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1935

That statement by a disinterested witness was improperly stricken out, but, since it was clearly admissible, it must be accepted as a part of the evidence. … as executor under the will, his act in so qualifying is not, in and by itself, sufficient to establish an election to take under the will, but may be considered in connection with other facts and circumstances, as evidence

Kimble v. Bender

173 Md. 608 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1938

The language of the enactment clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that these public officials are to be paid their respective and fixed salaries. … So it presented no such conformity to established forms or *626 modes of governmental office as to induce acceptance and use by the public in a reasonable belief of its legality.

American Motor Inns, Inc. v. A. W. L. Advertising Agency, Inc.

253 Md. 654 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1969

Motor Inns offered the testimony of Gilbert Sandler who also qualified as an expert witness. He said there was a difference between a contract and a budget. … We think his determination was clearly erroneous, because, as we have said, the uncontroverted evidence is to the contrary.

Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of Elections

377 Md. 127 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2003

Second, a qualified voter who moves from one residence to another within the same election *142 district remains fully qualified. … The statutory scheme challenged in Jenness is clearly distinguishable from Maryland’s requirements for the nomination of minor political party candidates.

Public Indemnity Co. v. Page

161 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1931

. & J. 205 , “The government of the State is established for the good of the whole, and can only be supported by means of its revenue; which revenue the good of the whole requires to- be protected. … But it is properly urged that a statute should not be construed as restricting any of the State’s rights or remedies unless such a purpose is clearly indicated.

Glenn v. Davis

35 Md. 208 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1872

. *213 We consider it very clearly established by the evidence of the surveyors, and the plats showing by actual measurement the location of the lots described in the deeds from Waesche to Boehm and to Sweetser, that the … Its effect, if it operates to bind the appellees, would be to change the rights and to limit and qualify the title of the reversion. We have found no authority to warrant us in giving to it this effect.

1986 Mercedes Benz 560 Ce Vin: WDBCA45DGA211147 v. State

334 Md. 264 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1994

Clearly, therefore, neither party addressed the use of the Mercedes Benz as section 297(b)(4) would have required. … Corporal Leadbeter, qualified as an expert, opined that possession of the latter two items 13 was *281 consistent with the distribution of cocaine.

In Re Barton

273 Md. 377 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1974

This Court has clearly stated that misappropriation of a client’s funds, even if no criminal conviction results, must be considered to be an offense of the utmost gravity. Bar Association of Baltimore City v. … This effort is not sufficient to qualify him to be licensed to practice law. Compare the activities of the petitioner in Braverman, supra, 271 Md. at 198-199.

Burton v. Artery Company

279 Md. 94 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1977

Bryan, 5 Md. 141 (1853), which he said “established the law in Maryland to be that a parol sale of growing timber is not within the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds ....” … The answer is clearly provided in § 2-709 relative to an action for the price.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dukes

248 Md. 63 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1967

The statute therefore establishes a two-fold test to determine its *67 applicability to a municipal employee; he must be engaged in “extra-hazardous work” and must be a “workman employed for wages.” … Her one week’s training would hardly qualify her for professional status.

DRD Pool Service, Inc. v. Freed

416 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 24, 2010

First, this Court may strike down a decision that is, “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” Adams, 406 Md. at 259 , 958 A.2d at 307 (quoting Townsend v. … Unlike Townsend , there has been no evidence or persuasive arguments put forth that our decision in Murphy was clearly wrong or contrary to established principles.

Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc.

281 Md. 207 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 1977

established by judicial authority.” … In addition, the policy considerations on which our established rule is founded weigh heavily against any departure in this case.

State v. McGagh

472 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2021

The State must satisfy the two-witness rule to establish falsity. … Polk, 378 Md. at 13- 14, 835 Md A.2d at 582 (emphasis added). 26 not immunized by the First Amendment right to free speech, baseless litigation is not immunized by the First

Zielian v. Baltimore Plant Ice Co.

115 Md. 658 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 1911

On the 25th day of March, 1908, the appellant upon application of certain creditors. was appointed sole receiver of the Baltimore Plate Ice Company, and duly qualified as such. … It was not conclusive as to his liability without further proceedings, and without an opportunity to defend, and this liability was clearly denied by the answer.