Case law

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford

204 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 2012

It was within the purview of the jury to assess the weight to be given to the plaintiffs’ testimony as to the value of their properties, *252 and the jury clearly found this evidence to be sufficient to determine that the … In Maryland, there is currently no independent tort cause of action for medical monitoring or a test established for recog *257 nizing medical monitoring as an allowable form of relief. Philip Morris, Inc. v.

Stansbury v. MDR Development, L.L.C.

161 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2005

Kennedy, 5 Har. and J. 195 (1821)): Whatever the law was elsewhere, that case settled it for this state, and has never been overruled or qualified. … MDR has not insisted that the easement be established over the old footbridge.

Green Healthcare Sol'ns v. Med. Cannabis Comm'n

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2022

HG § 13-3309(c)(1)(i).2 The Commission has authority to “establish an application review process for granting processor licenses in which applications are reviewed, evaluated, and ranked based on criteria established by … [a]nd that within that authority they can establish the process as they deem it to be proper.”

Donohue v. Mavronis

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2025

The bulkhead serves to establish a property line which will preserve the small access of Mr. … The previous lawsuit ended in a settlement which was placed on the record and included a dismissal of the case with prejudice, which is a qualifying final judgment on the merits. See, e.g., Bryan v. State Farm Mut.

State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc.

149 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2003

We must be mindful, however, that the agency’s power to reverse the decision of an ALJ is not limited to those situations in which the ALJ’s factual findings are clearly erroneous. … With respect to the third element—that the employee was meeting his employer’s expectations at the time of discharge— Kaydon argues that the evidence overwhelmingly established that Henry was not qualified for the machine

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. v. Harrison

186 Md. App. 228 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2009

Although those documents are not clearly identified in the record, appellant does not dispute this fact. … A trial court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous as long as they are supported by any competent material evidence in the record. See Figgins v.

Campbell v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2025

The motion court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous Here, the motion court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous because there was competent and material evidence to support the court’s findings … Alexander was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. He testified regarding the autopsy photographs he took of Purcell. 31 Dr.

Globe Security Systems Co. v. Sterling

79 Md. App. 303 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1989

(Emphasis added) Clearly, this instruction is incorrect. In Harris v. … The jury was instructed that appellee met her burden if she established abuse of the privilege by a preponderance of the evidence. In Kapiloff v.

Environmental Integrity Project v. Mirant Ash Management, LLC

197 Md. App. 179 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Birdsong, we set out the four-part test for determining whether a party qualifies for intervention as a matter of right: (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest in the … Rather, the burden is on appellants to establish an abuse of discretion by the circuit court.

Decker v. Fink

47 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 1980

I don’t want to be just qualified by your term basically. Isn’t this what you testified to in your deposition on page 5: "what about decision-making? … In such instance the judge becomes the factfinder for purposes of determining the applicability of the statute of limitations and we may not set aside his factual findings unless he was clearly in error.

Miller v. State

53 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1982

If he fails to establish a factual basis upon which to show a prima facie case, his challenge fails. … In order to show that the jury selection process was unconstitutional the challenging party must show: (1) that a cognizable group or class of qualified citizens was excluded; and (2) the exclusion was systematic and intentional

Williams v. State

99 Md. App. 711 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1994

We cannot say that Judge Johnson clearly abused that discretion in deeming the evidence relevant in this case. … Such a predicate was established in this case. Mia Jones became aware of the charges pending against the appellant on December 15, 1992.

Boyd v. MERC.-SAFE DEP. & TRUST CO.

28 Md. App. 18 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1975

This plat had the metes and bounds of the Cook property, then owned *21 by the seller, marked clearly upon it. … The exercise of the court's discretion, however, must not be arbitrary and is controlled by established principles of equity.

Smith v. State

186 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2009

The other elements of the privilege generally not being in issue, the establishment of compulsion establishes the privilege. … Would being asked to come to the station house and then being questioned behind closed doors qualify? Would a traffic stop qualify? Would a Terry stop on the street, with or without an attendant frisk, qualify?

Jones v. State

38 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1977

The record clearly shows that a written waiver was obtained from appellant before any interrogation was begun at that location. … You must find that the defendant’s confession has been corroborated by independent evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and this evidence need not establish by itself that a crime has been committed beyond

Sutton v. State

128 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1999

We will defer to the court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … Clearly, without the ability to review the warrant or even testimony as to its language, such a review is simply impossible.

Schmerling v. Injured Workers' Insurance Fund

139 Md. App. 470 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2001

IWIF’s use of the equipment clearly satisfied this prong of the exception. … the qualifying clause.

Jenkins v. Jenkins

112 Md. App. 390 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1996

The ERISA provisions generally prevent the assignment or distribution of the proceeds of an ERISA qualified plan to third parties. … Our rule clearly states that only announcement of an order that would be appealable starts the protected time period.

Mahoney v. Devonshire, Inc.

86 Md. App. 624 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1991

Agreeing with the Kopes that the trial court erred in restricting the scope of the easement, the Supreme Court observed: Even though the common and ordinary use which establishes the prescriptive right also limits and qualifies … Clearly, the disputed questions of fact did not involve matters regarding the scope of the right to exercise an established property right.

Perry v. State

229 Md. App. 687 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2016

Clearly, the highly nuanced “arc of danger” analysis that was applied in Albrecht is inapplicable to the facts presented in this case. … Therefore, Perry argues that because Corporal Resh was not qualified as an expert, his testimony was improperly admitted.