Case law

Smelkinson SYSCO v. Harrell

162 Md. App. 437 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2005

Harrell” and that SYSCO “was clearly seeking an end to it fully and finally.” … Accordingly, [it]t is well established in Maryland that a valid settlement agreement between the parties is binding upon them.

Eberly v. Eberly

12 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1971

However, the general rule as to the wife’s right to share equally in the income from property held as tenants by the entirety has been qualified by the Court of Appeals in particular circumstances. Thus in Wardrop v. … We cannot say that his discretion was arbitrarily used or his judgment clearly wrong.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Mark M.

147 Md. App. 99 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2002

qualified person. … The juvenile court’s determination that Helen M. had failed to establish good cause for the proposed examination was simply incorrect.

Assateague Coastkeeper v. Maryland Department of the Environment

200 Md. App. 665 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2011

The FDM recognized that an AFO qualifies as a CAFO with fewer animals if it has a liquid manure system. … The FDM clearly addressed the studies; appellants cite no rule that required the FDM to explicitly discuss each piece of evidence presented by the parties.

Phillips v. State

233 Md. App. 184 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2017

The court ultimately concluded that the State did not establish that drive tests as used by the FBI are generally accepted in the digital forensic science community. … Folson—were qualified to testify as experts. Phillips noted an appeal to this Court on June 13, 2016.

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Friendship Heights

57 Md. App. 69 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1984

Clearly, M-NCPPC is aggrieved thereby and has the requisite standing to appeal from this adverse decision. The trial court properly so held. … Clearly, Sec. 49-57 cannot be read to establish such an intent. 2. Friendship alleges that the agency considered the sector plan as being inflexible, thereby requiring the extension of Friendship Boulevard.

Davis v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Annapolis

98 Md. App. 707 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1994

[T]he one [statute] before us clearly posits entitlement upon death of a “member in service.” Id. at 694-95 , 296 A.2d 367 (emphasis added). Because the statute in effect and controlling at the time Lt. … Baltimore County, 487 F.Supp. 461, 467 (D.Md.1980), aff'd mem., 660 F.2d 488 (4th Cir.1981), applying Maryland law, interpreted Saxton as establishing that when a right is created in a pension plan, i.e., death-disability

Worsham v. Greenfield

187 Md. App. 323 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2009

The statute at issue, Ind.Code § 34-50-1-6, addressed qualified settlement offers and provided that if a recipient did not accept a qualified settlement offer and the final judgment was less favorable to the recipient than … The Rule clearly applies to “any proceeding” and clearly applies to parties who maintain or defend such a proceeding. Bastian v. Laffin, supra at 719, 460 A.2d 623 .

Howard County v. Dorsey

45 Md. App. 692 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1980

The CDC wanted a second opinion and so retained the services of Louis Earl Armiger, Jr., a qualified planning consultant. … Rutter) 1 think its [sic] clearly its [sic] clearly shown that — (Mr. Goldberg) Let me finish and I’ll give these questions — (Mr. Rutter) It is clearly shown on the map that it is only connected by the road.

Old Republic Insurance v. Gordon

228 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2016

Gordon cannot establish any of the elements of equitable estoppel because it made no representation to her, she did not rely on any representation from Old Republic, and she was not harmed by any representation from Old Republic … The record reflects, however, that Old Republic clearly and consistently advised the circuit court that its claim against Ms. Gordon was based on its subrogation rights. The argument is not waived. .

Tomas v. Tomas

34 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1976

She testified at the hearing that this move was motivated by her desire to participate in a job training program (not then available in Maryland) which would eventually qualify her for a higher position with the Department … Tomas did not give up or lose her Maryland domicile since it *82 was not shown that she had established a new and different domicile. Absent such a showing, her domicile remains in Maryland.

Myers v. State

243 Md. App. 154 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2019

The cash register was later determined to have been empty, but its own value was established to have been $500. … She clearly cannot be held to have been in error for not having been prescient. The appellant’s reasoning strays outside the clearly demarcated box. He does not turn square corners.

Swanson v. State

9 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1970

But here, where there is unanimity of opinion from an impartial and qualified staff of a psychiatric hospital maintained for this purpose at great expense to the taxpayers, the Court is unable to see why it should further … The cases clearly support Judge Kenney’s conclusion. In McGarty v.

Kearns v. Kearns

78 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1989

The monetary award of $12,500.00 was to be paid by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) from appellant’s tax-deferred savings plan (TDSP) and his employee stock option plan (ESOP) which the court valued at $22,173.70 … Any conduct or language that clearly indicates such an intent will suffice. See, e.g., Carsey v. Carsey, 67 Md.App. 544 [ 508 A.2d 533 ].

Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker

152 Md. App. 166 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2003

At the close of Booker’s case, and again at the close of all the evidence, appellants moved for judgment on the basis that there was no expert testimony to sufficiently establish the cause of Booker’s asthma. … A trial court's expert testimony determination may be reversed if predicated upon "an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court has clearly abused its discretion.” Raithel v.

Marriott v. Cole

115 Md. App. 493 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1997

between 1993 and 1996. 8 Accordingly, appellant had no protected property interest in the expectation of continued employment beyond 1996. 9 As stated by the Supreme Court, To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly … While immunity may be raised for the first time on appeal, Dept. of Public Safety v.

Mueller v. People's Counsel

177 Md. App. 43 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2007

People’s Counsel suggests that Lot 67 does not qualify for relief under BCZR § 304 or BCZR § 307. … Of import here, the Court of Appeals has said: “ ‘It is a clearly established rule in the law of zoning that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Zoning Board.’ ” Stansbury v.

Miller v. Bosley

113 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

The trial judge, based upon a report and recommendation of a master, issued his order establishing pendente lite custody and visitation for the minor child. … Litigants in all judicial proceedings are entitled to have their cause determined ultimately by a duly qualified judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Imagnu v. Wodajo

85 Md. App. 208 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1990

That they are is well established. Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984). … The first is that the court is satisfied after having studied the letter from counsel from the World Bank and its own knowledge, is satisfied that the Bank is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, and that

Eckstein v. Eckstein

38 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1978

The wife consulted Legal Aid but was advised that she did not qualify for their assistance. … We are, of course, aware of the strictures of Maryland Rule 1086, which cautions that the judgment of the lower court shall not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous.