Case law

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. .

Hart v. Hart

169 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2006

“The determination of whether an unconscionable disparity exists, according to section ll-106(c) of the Family Law Article, is a finding of fact, reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.” Solomon v. … We do not disturb an alimony award “unless the trial judge’s discretion was arbitrarily used or the judgment below was clearly wrong.” Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380, 385 , 614 A.2d 590 (1992).

Thomasian v. Thomasian

79 Md. App. 188 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 1989

Thomasian qualifies for indefinite alimony pursuant to subsection (c)(2). Suffice it to say that that issue was neither presented to nor decided by the court and, therefore, we will not address it. … The court’s resolution of the conflict was not clearly erroneous, see Maryland Rule 8-131(a), nor was it unauthorized.

Mauk v. State

91 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 1992

If the legislature clearly intended that punishments should not be cumulative, that is, of course, dispositive. … Clearly, no double jeopardy problem is involved.

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.

E.N. v. T.R.

247 Md. App. 234 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals overruled Janice M. because it was “clearly wrong,” and held “that de facto parenthood is a viable means to establish standing to contest custody or visitation.” Id. at 59, 66. … Id. at 654 (“The biological father’s decision not to support J.B.R. and not to seek a relationship with his daughter for more than a decade clearly evidences his consent for [the de facto parent] to establish a parent-child

England v. State

21 Md. App. 412 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1974

If jury instructions when read as a whole, clearly set forth the applicable law, there is no reversible error. Burko v. State, 19 Md. App. 645 , 313 A. 2d 864 (1974); Fowler v. State, 18 Md. … Code Art. 27, § 463 provides that if a jury qualifies its verdict with the words “without capital punishment” the sentence imposed by the court shall not exceed twenty years.

DeLuca v. State

78 Md. App. 395 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1989

This became an established criterion under Maryland law. In McCoy v. … Even according to the appellant’s “best scenario,” the only Brady category in which he could hope to qualify would be the third.

Seldon v. State

151 Md. App. 204 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2003

These decisions do not furnish particularly helpful guides to the answer to the precise question raised here, namely, whether the bailor’s constitutional immunities were violated in the search consented to by his bailee. … An individual’s physiological reaction to a proposed intrusion into his or her privacy cannot establish probable cause or even grounds to suspect.

Cook v. State

8 Md. App. 243 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1969

This must be established by “clear and convincing evidence.” … We do not think that the court was clearly wrong in its factual findings on the evidence. Md. Rule 1086.

Celanese Corp. v. Comptroller of Treasury

60 Md. App. 392 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1984

Since the federal ordinary income in question clearly does not qualify as income from ground rents, rents and royalties under § 316(a), the appellant argues that it falls within the description of “and other income from real … This argument is answered and refuted by the established rule of ejusdem generis applicable to this statutory construction.

Maryland Green Party v. State Board of Elections

165 Md. App. 113 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 2005

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The Green Party became qualified as a statutorily recognized political party in Maryland on August 16, 2000. … Section 1343(3) provides: *136 To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States

Swatek v. Board of Elections

203 Md. App. 272 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 2012

In Gaetano, 310 Md. at 121 , 527 A.2d 46 , the Court of Appeals established a standard for determining whether an administrative appeal should be dismissed when a memorandum was untimely. … Clearly, the appel-lees were given adequate time to become informed of the issues and the appellants’ arguments as well as to prepare a response to the memorandum. See [Md.]

Ory v. Libersky

40 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 1978

In addition to the agreement, other evidence of record in this case clearly establishes a jury question on the issue of loss of educational benefits. … Maryland law clearly permits lump sum verdicts in *167 wrongful death actions. Sun Cab Co. v. Walston, supra, 15 Md. App. at 154, 289 A. 2d at 826 (1972).

Meadowlark Insurance v. Insurance Commissioner

101 Md. App. 379 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1994

The subtitle establishes a method of alternative service upon *382 unauthorized insurers, defines those acts which are to be construed as the “business of insurance” in Maryland and requires that reports be filed with the … Those acts done after *388 a contract has been negotiated and agreed upon (e.g., delivery of the contract, the filing and handling of claims, payment of premium) are clearly not “negotiations.”

Cooper v. Berkshire Life Insurance

148 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2002

Fish And Steinhardt With respect to Fish and Steinhardt, we easily can answer this argument because insurance agents and brokers clearly owe a professional’s duty to the insured. … This general rule is qualified by the “discovery rule,” providing that the cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong. See Poffenberger v.

Bodeau v. State

248 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2020

Although establishing “some prejudice,” Akin v. … Feinberg, 441 Md. 310, 322 (2015) (“Appellate courts accept and are bound by findings of fact in the lower court unless they are clearly erroneous.” (cleaned up)).

Meyr v. Meyr

195 Md. App. 524 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2010

She claimed that it was only when she learned that, as a permanent resident, she was immune from deportation that she [felt] free to leave. Although Mrs. … Meyr argues that the establishment of a regular schedule is not required.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. J970013

128 Md. App. 242 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1999

We agree entirely with the appellant’s assertions that his incarceration does not literally qualify as a disability under the statutory definition found in § 5-301(c) of the Family Law Article. … Unlike the situation before the Court in Adoption CAA92 where an affirmative release date had been established for William F., the appellant is not scheduled even for parole consideration again until 2001, and there is no

In the Matter of Sulerzyski

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2023

Mother’s affidavit clearly indicates that Ms. … Sulerzyski, the ALJ clearly erred in finding that Ms.