Case law

Benkin v. Benkin

71 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1987

Benkin’s qualifying for an indefinite alimony award based solely on “age, illness, infirmity or disability” under subsection (c)(1), we must now address the impact of her age, qualifications and whatever disability she might … wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established

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.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Colonial Farm Credit, ACA

173 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2007

This would clearly include the taxation provisions for FLBAs pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2098 . … In this case, the Internal Revenue Code does not clearly establish Colonial’s federal taxable income.

In re: Z.F. & B.F.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2025

For example, Mother argues that the Department’s visits with the Children at Grandmother’s home were required under COMAR 07.02.11.17(A) and therefore do not qualify as “services.” … Wyeth, 408 Md. 575, 630 (2009) (alterations in original) (quoting Institute of Medicine, Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism, Washington, D.C. (National Academies Press 2004)).

Walston v. Dobbins

10 Md. App. 490 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1970

Having established his knowledge, through experience, as to the charges of x-ray specialists, *496 Dr. Berman was properly allowed to testify as to the fairness and reasonableness of the bill. … Berman’s testimony, as well as Dobbins’ testimony, clearly indicates the treatment given on January 6, 1967, and in the visits following that date were for the same injuries treated in the initial visit.

Allen v. State

39 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1978

Assuming that he was so qualified, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in sustaining the objections. … We agree that, technically, the statute is not a part of the Inland Rules as established by Congress.

Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. v. Rams Head Savage Mill, LLC

237 Md. App. 705 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2018

Insurers thus must draft exclusionary provisions “conspicuously, plainly and clearly.” Id. I. … That is, again, conclusively established by the criminal penalties and private right of action created by § 3-902 itself.

Della Ratta, Inc. v. American Better Community Developers, Inc.

38 Md. App. 119 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1977

To recover damages for lost profits, a plaintiff must establish three elements: “... … To establish damages for lost profits with “reasonable certainty” does not mean that they must be established in an exact pecuniary amount.

PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY. v. Beachwood I Ltd. Partnership

107 Md. App. 627 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1995

Inadequate Expert Testimony: Predicated on Economic Disadvantage Sometimes, by contrast, the expert opinion that a “mistake” had been made in the comprehensive zoning was based on a clearly identified and extensively developed … Crozier testified would not establish mistake or error for the reason noted by Howard County v.

Murphy v. Board of County Commissioners

13 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1971

We cannot say that the judge was in error, on the evidence before him, in ruling that Pauley was not qualified to express an expert opinion. D. … It is well established that the action of a trial court on a motion for a new trial is not reviewable on appeal, at least when the trial court fairly exercised its discretion. Leitch v.

Pinheiro v. State

244 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2020

Hence, we hold that the BWC footage qualifies as physical evidence under § 9-307(b). ii. … The plain language of the statute clearly indicates that the fabrication of physical evidence is, in part, a specific intent crime. See Harris v.

Hearing v. Citizens Band & Trust Co.

21 Md. App. 517 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1974

Institution of Civil Proceedings: The establishment of this element is conceded by the Bank. … The Court of Appeals stated the proposition clearly in Siegman v.

Sodergren v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

138 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2001

Schneider, 322 Md. 520 , 588 A.2d 786 (1991), the Court of Appeals concluded that previous cases, including Gersh , stand for the proposition that absolute witness immunity will not apply in a nonjudicial proceeding unless … We are not persuaded that the circumstances and facts of this case require a departure from established precedent. Faith v.

Thomas v. Rowhouses, Inc.

206 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2012

Thomas also emphasizes that Rule 2-124(o) applies when a corporation has no resident agent, which is clearly the case here. In turn, appellees argue that Md. … Such an action clearly would not render Rule 2-124(o ) inapplicable. .

Gallagher v. Gallagher

118 Md. App. 567 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1997

Burke did not testify as an expert witness, we believe his testimony was qualified as such. … Carney and the investigator fees, the information gathered from these sources, although much was not used at trial, was necessary to establish appellee’s ground for divorce.

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Agriculture

211 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

Clearly, the document is related to nutrient management plans. … The number of animals that qualify [as] a facility housing poultry as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation ("CAFO”) depends on the type of manure handling system employed.

Webb v. State

144 Md. App. 729 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2002

If you want the Public Defender you’ve got to apply to them and if you qualify, they will appoint someone to represent you. … Appellant argues that the court erred in imposing his sentence because the record is devoid of evidence establishing that the State complied with Maryland Rule 4-245(c).

Ruiz v. Kinoshita

239 Md. App. 395 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2018

This consent order cannot qualify as an appealable interlocutory order. Cf. Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. … s therapy qualifies as an extraordinary medical expense.

Martino v. Arfaa

169 Md. App. 692 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2006

The court concluded that, even with the exhibits, “it is not clear from the *705 pleadings which of the three buildings on the property qualifies as the ‘residence’ of the [Arfaas].” … Further, the photographs attached do not clearly distinguish the residence of the Defendants from any of the other buildings on their property.

Yivo Institute for Jewish Research v. Zaleski

156 Md. App. 527 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2004

Karski died on July 12, 2000, and appellee Paul Zaleski qualified as the personal representative. 7 Because of his earlier gift, the personal representative denied YIVO’s request for payment of the bequest on the basis that … Ploss’ testimony established that Dr. Karski intended the bequest in his will to act only as security for his obligation to YIVO, which was satisfied when he made the inter vivos gift.