Case law

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.

Ridge Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, Inc. v. Brennen

135 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 2000

One who is in the trade is clearly in a better position than an owner to know whether the contractor is in a financially unstable position. … Clearly, the addition in this case was “on the land of the owner.”

Wilson v. State

136 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2000

The Court held that the medical examiner was qualified as an expert, thus satisfying Md. … This clearly establishes a base of knowledge from which the State could argue a motive on the part of Defendant to murder an infant child for $150,000 in insurance proceeds.

Johnson v. Francis

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Jackson, 442 Md. 311 (2015). 16 indemnify an employee established in this subsection.”9 Thus, the Department contends, subsection (b)(2) establishes that the “shall be liable … (2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.

Lakeview Loan Serv. v. Baxter

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2025

Vol.), § 12-1001 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”), qualifies as a credit grantor for purposes of CLEC. … Even so, Lakeview and Nationstar concede that the trust legitimately qualifies as a credit grantor under CLEC.

Crabill v. Crabill

119 Md. App. 249 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1998

Crabill is a qualified paralegal and has held higher paying jobs in the past as a paralegal and as a personnel officer. *254 Mr. … Fixed-term, “rehabilitative” alimony is clearly preferred to indefinite alimony. Tracey, 328 Md. at 391 , 614 A.2d 590 .

Ramirez v. State

178 Md. App. 257 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 2008

Further, it contends that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that jury deliberations had not yet begun while the alternate was in the jury room, and in finding the presumption of prejudice was rebutted. … Although the alternate was in the jury room “after the door was shut,” the evidence clearly showed that she was there for just a few minutes, and at a point when actual deliberations had not yet begun.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Webb

44 Md. App. 547 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1980

“In no case shall the uninsured motorist coverage be less than the coverage afforded a qualified person under Article 48A §§ 243H and 243-1.” *556 The Court of Appeals, in State Farm v. Md. Auto. Ins. … Since the coverage is only for that to which an insured is entitled against an uninsured motorist, to restrict a means of establishing entitlement, restricts the coverage itself thus clearly limiting the coverage which the

Carlini v. State

215 Md. App. 415 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2013

Each opinion nonetheless held clearly that a sentence in excess of the sentencing cap established by the plea agreement was illegal per se. … “Clearly, then, restitution is punishment for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted.

Young v. State

14 Md. App. 538 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1972

The trial tactics pursued were clearly in furtherance of this strategy. … Then clearly within the court’s advisory capacity, it told them of the established law.

Cruz v. State

168 Md. App. 149 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2006

He qualified that. Excuse me. He qualified that to indicate that he didn’t *157 actually—the dog didn’t actually go in through there but actually the dog—his head was inside and paws were up on the open window. … The Court explained, id. at 493-94 , 864 A.2d 1006 : *163 Place and Jacobsen together establish that government tests, such as a canine sniff, that can reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics and are conducted from

Stanley v. State

157 Md. App. 363 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2004

THE COURT: I mean, there are cases that clearly say, as I recall from reading them, that you are allowed to do that and there is not reversible error. … “It is well established in Maryland that evidence of a defendant’s prior crime can tempt the jury into convicting the defendant because he has committed bad acts in the past rather than because the evidence establishes guilt

Shangri-La Ltd. Partnership v. Meade

181 Md. App. 127 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2008

It is clear that breathing qualifies as a major life activity. Sutton v. … The word “substantial” thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of manual tasks from qualifying as disabilities. (Internal citations omitted.)

White v. State

142 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

Despite its broad discretion, a trial court’s “decision to admit or reject [expert testimony] is reviewable on appeal and may be reversed if it is founded on an error of law or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion … This will be *545 evidence which tends to establish or disprove a material fact. Id. at 41 , 542 A.2d 1258 .

Taylor v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2015

6 unless clearly erroneous, and give due regard to the court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses.” Id. … First, Mothersell clearly stated that in his experience, “I’ve had several DUI arrests where there’s plenty of open containers left in the vehicle.”

Cannon v. Cannon

156 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 2004

[Appellant] has testified that he filled out a form stating his assets when he was applying to qualify for a loan for the new house. … The trial judge’s findings in this regard were not clearly erroneous.

Sharp v. Sharp

58 Md. App. 386 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1984

We further stated that to qualify under this rule, “any unpaid marital debt must be directly traceable to the acquisition of marital property.” Id. … Although the appellee had the burden of proving the value of the marital property (as she had the affirmative of that issue), appellant had the burden of establishing traceable debt.

University Nursing Home, Inc. v. R.B. Brown & Associates, Inc.

67 Md. App. 48 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1986

Clearly these would give rise to two separate damage claims. … I just don’t think he is qualified.

Shapiro & Duncan, Inc. v. Payne

215 Md. App. 674 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2014

The parties’ dispute centers on whether Payne’s interstate employment qualifies him as a “covered employee” under L.E. § 9–203(a)(2). … On review, we are persuaded that the trial court’s findings of fact, to which we must defer, are not clearly erroneous. See W.M.