Case law

COMPTROLLER OF TREASURY, IT DIV. v. Armco, Inc.

70 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1987

Those parent corporations whose DISCs do not meet the 50% standard do not qualify for the exclusion. … As guidance to the Tax Court, we note that the legal tests to be applied are clearly established in Ramsey, Scarlett, supra, and Xerox. The error below lay in not applying the test to the proper entity.

Fischer v. State

117 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 1997

The house in question was clearly a structure in that it was a building. … Generally, a structure which qualifies as a dwelling house for the purpose of burglary also qualifies as a dwelling house for the purpose of arson. In Kanaras v.

Blaine v. Blaine

97 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

The fundamental importance of Thomasian lies not in it providing an example of a situation not qualifying as a change in circumstance; indeed, neither of the parties in Thomasian alleged any such change existed. … We cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous or an abuse of judicial discretion. B.

Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan Center

249 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2021

The ALJ found that Mercer had “very clearly indicated to Ms. Olinger that [he] declined legal representation.” … Because Mercer had “so clearly identified to Ms.

Office of Occupational Medicine & Safety v. Baltimore Community Relations Commission

88 Md. App. 420 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1991

facie case of employment discrimination under section 24-34-402(l)(a), an applicant bears the burden of showing that he or she is handicapped within the meaning of section 24-34-301(4), that the applicant was otherwise qualified … It is well settled, however, that, once an employee establishes a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, as Johnson has done here, the employer has the burden to establish to a “reasonable probability” that the complainant

Hourie v. State

53 Md. App. 62 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1982

The evidence established that this information would have affected the appellant’s benefits and was, therefore, material. … The evidence clearly established that Nearhoof and Jamie met that definition.

Metalcraft, Inc. v. Pratt

65 Md. App. 281 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 1985

It established the total sales price for the foundry inventory at $60,000 (including a figure for goodwill). … Its reliance on Qualified Builders is misplaced, however.

Thomassen Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Goldbaum

45 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1980

We do not read Wedeman as establishing any such principle. … That is clearly not the law.

Wilson v. State

241 Md. App. 683 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2019

Rather, it appears to pertain to anyone who qualifies as a “spouse,” without regard to the motive for the marriage. … In affirming the trial court, the Alaska Supreme Court held that, “the spousal testimonial immunity privilege is capable of being relaxed under Criminal Rule 53.” Id.

Pringle v. State

141 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2001

Proximity could not be more clearly established. Folk, 11 Md.App. at 518 , 275 A.2d 184 (emphasis added). The Folk test was again applied in Colin v. … Colin was traveling in the same vehicle as the cocaine, however, and that is sufficient to establish “close proximity.”

Witt v. Ristaino

118 Md. App. 155 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1997

Their original purpose was to “establish[ ] child support guidelines ... [which were] advisory only and g[a]ve rise to no presumption or inference” of correctness. 1989 Md. Laws, Chap. 2. … It would be nonsensical to allow a child to remain in a special or private school after the parents’ separation only if he or she qualifies for “special education” services.

Mullinix v. Mullinix

12 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1971

For this reason the court has established certain principles for better application of the legal standard to the facts at hand. … been applied; we feel obliged to follow the established rule.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Maryland Yacht Club, Inc.

129 Md. App. 455 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1999

STANDARD OF REVIEW Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment. … Indeed, the lower court was clearly cognizant of the Policy’s terms.

Herbert v. State

136 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2001

Proximity could not be more clearly established. (Emphasis supplied). … The preference clearly influences the measurement.

Orfanos v. Athenian, Inc.

66 Md. App. 507 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1986

There was no evidence establishing precisely where, or how, the fire started. … It also provides a basis for not applying the privilege, or immunity, that attends in defamation cases.

State v. Rogers

240 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2019

Rogers qualified as a tier II sex offender and was required to register upon release from prison because he was convicted of violating CR § 11-303 and his victim was a minor. Mr. … Rogers filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not required to register as a sex offender because, he argued, the State had failed to establish that his victim was, in fact, a minor

Fultz v. Shaffer

111 Md. App. 278 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1996

QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER The husband specifically agrees to cooperate with the wife, to perform any acts, and to execute any documents, necessary to enable the wife to prepare obtain [sic] a Qualified Domestic Relations … He stated that the intent of the parties “clearly excluded the possibility that [Ms.

Montgomery County v. Lindsay

50 Md. App. 675 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1982

Lindsay, by a document entitled "Authorization to establish or change deductions,” dated January 25,1978, was designated by Angerman as the primary beneficiary of his retirement contributions. … It seems apparent to us that the qualifying word "unless”, which means "[e]xcept on condition that” (See American Heritage Dictionary), modifies the word preceding it, "member”.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Firefighters Local 734

136 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2001

L.Rev. 1221, 1267 (1985). 5 In sum, the Charter clearly establishes that the City must submit disputes over terms and conditions of employment to arbitration. … Rules 28 and 29 call for preferential hiring of qualified persons in the organizational unit who have previously been laid off.

Ricks v. State

82 Md. App. 369 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1990

The officers then established a surveillance operation in the vicinity of the terminal. 1 At approximately 6:10 p.m. Officer Steven W. … Rather, it was clearly a search incident to a valid arrest, an exception to the warrant requirement that was not relevant to either Chadwick or Sanders. New York v.