Case law

Pride Mark Realty, Inc. v. Mullins

30 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1976

That establishes the standard of care against which a real estate agent or real estate broker is measurable. … Rule 323 b did not apply to actions against public officers and that “the defense of immunity, or privilege, should be raised by the pleadings and not by a mandatory preliminary motion.”

Lett v. State

51 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1982

He reasoned that the two convictions did not qualify as separate occasions as provided by Article 27, § 643B (c). … Together they give little succor in establishing the ambiguity needed by the state.

Hobby v. Burson

222 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2015

To qualify as a reasonable effort under 24 C.F.R. §203.604, the mortgagee must send at least one letter to the mortgagor and make one trip to the mortgaged property. … As the trial court properly found, this clearly established that Freedom made a 7 We note that the Field Contact Sheet is accompanied by photographs of the mortgaged property, taken by Freedom’s representative

ARONSON & COMPANY v. Fetridge

181 Md. App. 650 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2008

To qualify for the deduction, federal regulations require that payments be purely for services. … It contends first, from Cines’ testimony and November 16, 2001 correspondence *676 from Aronson’s counsel informing Fetridge of the balance in his Deferred Compensation Account, that Aronson clearly intended to pay Fetridge

Housing Opportunities Comm'n v. Adebayo

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2023

By contrast, “[t]here are cases holding that where a private graveyard [e.g., a family graveyard] is established and clearly marked out, and markers maintained, an implied reservation or easement is created.” … Despite the late-Victorian verbosity of the 1888 statute, the literal terms of the opening clause clearly establish that the entity that is required to act is “the court.”

Roberts v. Total Health Care, Inc.

109 Md. App. 635 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1996

To qualify as an unconstitutional taking under the Constitution, the state’s actions must create a severe deprivation of property. Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 84 , 92 S.Ct. at 1996 . … It is enough to say that the record establishes clearly and unequivocally that the contract between- the Department and Total Health establishes the per capita payment and the assignment of the subrogation right as the collective

In re: Adoption/G'ship of C.A. & D.A.

234 Md. App. 30 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2017

He indicated in a letter to the Department that his plan was to take the children to Mexico once established there. … This is because “the record fails to establish that retaining the parental relationship would be detrimental to the children’s best interests.”

Ford v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

149 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2003

Kaloroumakis is immunized from the retaliatory animus attributable to the appointing authority; and, VI. … to establish whether she is entitled to relief on the ground that the facts of her case did not warrant her termination.

Keirsey v. State

106 Md. App. 551 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1995

The reliability of RFLP test results has been established. … each phase of the test was in proper working order, and (2) the persons operating the equipment at every stage in the process were qualified to do so.

Jones v. State

11 Md. App. 468 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 1971

App. 705; and the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 1086. … The rule is well established that the widest discretion has been given trial courts in the conduct of trials and this discretion should not be disturbed unless it is clearly abused. Plank v.

Berry v. State

244 Md. App. 234 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

in accordance with those validated procedures, then the analysis qualifies for automatic admissibility under the statute.” … State, the Court of Appeals held that the following qualified as a denial: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just listen to my question.

People's Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm'n

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2016

OPC’s second asserted grounds are nowhere near as clearly defined as the first. … -37- BGE had taken the position that each “asset class” qualified as a single “project.”

Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Com'n v. Friendship Hts. and Hills

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.

Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Hicks

25 Md. App. 503 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1975

The Court observed that the *522 control retained by the defendant was a qualified one, “and there was at least the possibility of access by others.” Id., at 463. … Thus the Court of Appeals has discarded its prior inconsistencies and clearly approved the view taken in the majority of jurisdictions.”

Reuter v. Reuter

102 Md. App. 212 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1994

Did the trial court err when it established husband’s child support obligation? IV. … Those same five factors may also be considered when establishing a parent’s potential income. Goldberger, 96 Md.App. at 327-28 , 624 A.2d 1328 .

Martin v. Allegany County Board of Education

212 Md. App. 596 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2013

On appeal, the Court analyzed the county board’s policy, which provided the following in pertinent part: [A]ll qualified school age minor persons whose parents do not have an established bona fide residence in Howard County … The student was accepted, but was required to establish residency to comply with school policy. Id.

Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP

212 Md. App. 685 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 2013

The court additionally erred by finding that appellants’ experts failed to state clearly enough the precise scope of the duty owed. … Fine are qualified ... my view is that their opinions are ‘because I said so’ opinions....

Lady v. Prince George's County

43 Md. App. 99 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1979

.” — the Court nevertheless clearly held fast to the rule that there was no right to a refund of overpaid taxes except as permitted by statute. … This type of reasoning has not found favor in Maryland, however, as witness the continued vitality (except as expressly repealed or diluted by statute) of the general doctrine of sovereign immunity. 3 As did the Illinois

McCullough v. State

233 Md. App. 702 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2017

established federal law.” … The court held that the California court’s failure to apply Graham to the defendant’s sentences was contrary to clearly established federal law.

Street v. Upper Chesapeake Med. Ctr.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2024

In a suit against defendants including the urologist, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of qualified expert and report by a nephrologist. … This is clearly a discretionary matter for the trial court. Garlock, Inc. v. Gallagher, 149 Md. App. 189, 214 (2003) (citations omitted).