Case law

Monumental Enterprises, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore City

26 Md. App. 24 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1975

By Chapter 540 of the Acts of 1941, (modified in some respects by Chapter 761, Acts of 1943), a new procedure quasi in rem was established, analogous to a mortgage foreclosure. Gathwright v. … Although he concurred in the result for other reasons, Judge (later Chief Judge) Hammond felt constrained to make the following observations at 539 [626]: “The Tax Sales Act of 1943 sought to make tax sales immune from attacks

State v. Lewis

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2023

Judge Anderson clearly looked upon Darby as a “co-defendant.” … For an admission of guilty involvement to qualify as cognizable proof of guilt, the authorship of the damaging admission needs to be established with particularity.

Lucas v. State

116 Md. App. 559 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 1997

Thus, Detective Taylor’s qualifications clearly enabled him to testify as to the nature of the items found in the Monica Place apartment. … On appeal, the admission or rejection of such evidence “may be reversed if it is founded on an error of law or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Id.

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 2024

disqualified bidder, then AutoFlex might be able to establish that it would be next in line, as the best qualified remaining bidder. 13  On January 8, 2021, the MSBE recounted … Rule 5-201 qualify as “one aspect of law that allows the Court to acknowledge a fact[.]”

Holmes v. State

119 Md. App. 518 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1998

Detective Anthony Mammano, who was qualified as an expert in the packaging and identification of drugs, testified that it was his opinion that the substances were packaged for distribution and not for personal use. *523 I … I will establish these are routine booky (sic) questions. *528 THE COURT: That’s not a routine booky (sic) question.

Morris v. State

192 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2010

The mandate in Evans clearly indicates that the Court did not reverse Evan’s death sentence. … Law § 3-402(a), clearly refers to robbery as defined by § 3-401(e).

Ridgeway v. State

140 Md. App. 48 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2001

The question is that the Court clearly indicated that it was imposing a separate sentence for the offenses committed against each of these people. … The two shootings, in satisfaction of the first step, clearly fell within the "common plan" or "motive" exceptions to Rule 5-404(b).

Garrity v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing

221 Md. App. 678 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2015

The CPD also ordered Garrity to cease and desist from acts and omissions that violate the CPA and to pay into a restitution fund to be distributed by the CPD to qualified consumers. … Read together, these two Sections clearly distinguish criminal penalties for “misdemeanor[s]” and the penalties imposed through license revocation.

Bacon v. Arey

203 Md. App. 606 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2012

Continuing violations that qualify under this theory are continuing unlawful acts, for example, a monthly over-charge of rent, not merely the continuing effects of a single earlier act. … defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party *657 under Rule 2-211, an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim, and a defense of governmental immunity

In Re Adoption No. 95195062

116 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1997

Undoubtedly, the Department introduced it to establish the truth of its contents. … The Court concluded: Covington clearly lights the path which may be followed by the defendant in such circumstances.

Bethesda Armature Co. v. Sullivan

47 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1981

built for the special use of the establishment, its customers, or its suppliers; and the question has arisen as to whether such a driveway or ramp qualifies as a "special use” sufficient to charge the abutting owner with … Unfortunately, this issue was not so clearly presented to the jury.

Dejarnette v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2021

Dejarnette maintains that “where the State seeks to admit the results of a breath test but fails to establish compliance with the observation period, the test results are inadmissible.” … The record clearly supports a factual finding that the officers complied with the COMAR regulation requiring a twenty-minute observation period prior to the administration of the breath test. III.

Wallace-Bey v. State

234 Md. App. 501 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2017

During cross-examination, defense counsel established that the nurse had observed “similar” abrasions during other forensic examinations. … The prosecutor insisted that testimony about anything Whaley said to Wallace-Bey was “clearly hearsay.”

Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Sparks

42 Md. App. 382 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1979

some rather convoluted reasoning, he gleaned such authority from the section that permitted the Fund to discipline agents violating its regulations, § 243B (e): “[T]he General Assembly, in writing this particular section clearly … provided, however, that the Fund, upon review of the application, may not later than 60 days after the coverage is effective, cancel the coverage and refuse to issue a policy upon the finding that, one, the applicant is not qualified

Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police

222 Md. App. 278 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

In the court’s view, they are entitled to at least “qualified immunity” to the extent the plaintiffs seeks to hold them personally liable. … “If the law at the time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law forbade

In the Matter of Meddings

244 Md. App. 204 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

After a show cause hearing, Wolfe was granted an order establishing an interlocutory lien against Maryland National Golf. Id. … From this review of case law, we confirm an established principle of appellate review: a trial court’s factual findings will be reviewed for clear error.

Janey v. State

166 Md. App. 645 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2006

Janey’s disappearance if Jones were granted immunity. After arrangements were made that were satisfactory to Jones and his attorney, Jones led police to the grave containing Mrs. … State, 58 Md.App. 626 , 636 n. 3, 473 A.2d 1329 (accessory after fact does not qualify as accomplice), cert. denied, 300 Md. 795 , 481 A.2d 240 (1984).

Claybourne v. State

209 Md. App. 706 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2013

Gibbs’ inconsistencies was clearly admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating her credibility. Washington, 293 Md. at 469 , 445 A.2d 684 . … Southall ("Dr.Southall”), the State’s qualified expert in forensic pathology, performed the autopsy on Mr. Thompson. She noted that Mr.

Tri-State Truck & Equipment Co. v. Stauffer

24 Md. App. 221 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1975

The charge itself clearly so limited the effective influence of § H7. … The purpose of licensing operators of automobiles is to make it reasonably certain that the licensee is qualified for the task and a proper person to be licensed. G. L. c. 90, §§ 8, 10.

Columbia Town Center Title Co. v. 100 Investment Ltd. Partnership

203 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2012

The bank first informed the Jacqueses that they qualified for a $74,000 loan, but later informed them that a mistake had been made and that, under the bank’s guidelines, they only qualified for a $41,400 loan. … It is obvious, however, that a title insurer would want to exclude a defect clearly shown on the public record from coverage.