Case law

Daniels v. Daniels

217 Md. App. 406 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2014

Appellee, Brenda Daniels, his daughter from a former marriage, qualified as personal representative of his estate. … He clearly had access to them throughout his lifetime, which means that he ... clearly could have revoked it at any point.

Brittingham v. State

63 Md. App. 164 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1985

That the doctor never filed such a report is clearly not the same as never having seen the subject report. … This evidence was clearly discovered during the trial, as opposed to “since the trial”. Id.

Riffey v. Tonder

36 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1977

I’m not just using him, Your Honor, — I am not attempting to use him to establish anything with respect to the use of Heparin. (The Court) I understand. (Mr. … raised by the plaintiff, was clearly a part of the plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr.

Duran v. State

180 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 2008

The State conceded that second degree assault was not an enumerated crime, but maintained that Cain should be required to register as an offender “because the underlying facts establishing the assault were sexual in nature … On appeal, however, the State, impliedly conceding that indecent exposure is not a “qualifying offense” requiring registration, argues that, nevertheless, the plea agreement “clearly contemplated” that appellant be “evaluated

Koren v. Capital-Gazette Newspapers, Inc.

22 Md. App. 576 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 1974

SET TODAY” clearly implies official belief in Koren’s criminal involvement. In short, no perplexed reader was still seeking subtle clues in *585 the tenth paragraph as to the position of the FBI in the case. … Welch, supra, also definitely established that there may never be punitive damages, absent the establishment of “constitutional malice.” 5 . Time, Inc. o.

Patel v. Board of License Commissioners

230 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2016

And clearly I think that issue has been settled.” Counsel for Mr. … Patel qualifies under the first category; he is a person who holds an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Board.

Secretary, Maryland Department of Personnel v. Bender

44 Md. App. 714 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 1980

Ill, § 29 requires) so clearly addresses this problem then pending in this case, that it all but names the parties and the employees it intended to affect. … Another bill was enacted in the same 1978 Session proposing to add a new "Section 56” dealing with an entirely different subject matter, i.e., the "Defense of Sovereign Immunity”. Chapter 523, Laws of Md. 1978.

Walker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

66 Md. App. 687 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1986

Interstate Fire and Casualty Company, 302 Md. 383 , 488 A.2d 486 (1985) in which a few well-established principles were again considered. … The Policy clearly states that it is not applicable “to the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of any aircraft other than aircraft chartered with crew by or on behalf of the insured____” (Emphasis

Sizemore v. Town of Chesapeake Beach

225 Md. App. 631 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2015

To qualify as a nonconforming use, the use must exist at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance, or the date the zoning ordinance became effective. … The logical extension of their position is that a vested zoning right to continue construction exists in perpetuity and is immune from the applicable zoning regulations.

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 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[.]”

Homes Oil Co. v. Maryland Department of Environment

135 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2000

. § 4-704 provides for the establishment of the fund: (a) Established.—There is an Oil Contaminated Site Environmental Cleanup Fund. (b) Uses. … The Fund was established to provide assistance and adequate financial resources for these clean-up efforts.

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 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[.]”

Fedorowicz v. State Retirement & Pension System

164 Md. App. 198 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 15, 2005

The panel unanimously held that cancer qualifies as an “injury” under the statutory scheme. See id. at 15 , 800 A.2d 803 . … We do not address whether claimants like Fedorowicz may assert a claim directly against the employer agency that allegedly caused the application to be submitted late, subject to any applicable notice and governmental immunity

Carter v. State

178 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2008

institution an order of appointment or a certified copy of the order issued by or under the direction or supervision of the court or an officer of the court; (iii) The customer is disabled and a guardian is appointed or qualified … We thus conclude that the suppression court committed no error in finding that the information provided by M & T Bank could be properly relied upon in establishing probable cause to issue the warrant.

Nerenberg v. RICA

131 Md. App. 646 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2000

Even examining this incident in the light most favorable to the estate, Laura clearly defied a direct order in an organization that by its nature must be a tight ship. … Here, the estate does not establish any “real reasons” other than those offered by RICA.

Brock Bridge Ltd. Partnership, Inc. v. Development Facilitators, Inc.

114 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1997

It should attempt to parse out those damages that BBLP can establish that it or BBBI suffered with reasonable certainty. … Appellants argue that the court was clearly erroneous in this factual determination, indicating that exhibits and testimony established that DFI’s own estimate of the amounts totalled $356,870.50.

Harris v. State

40 Md. App. 58 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1978

The State objected to the admission of this statement, contending that it constituted hearsay and did not qualify under the admission against penal interest exception. … that a confession by one other than the defendant, that he committed the crime in question, should be received and considered by the trier of the guilt of the accused, unless it is clearly collusive, frivolous or otherwise

Collins v. State

89 Md. App. 273 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1991

Because it usurps the fact-finding function of the jury, such an instruction is clearly error, United States v. … This is especially true when a court is construing a penal statute, which, according to well established case law, is to be strictly construed.

Basciano v. Foster

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2022

In so doing, the Court overturned Janice M. as “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” and as “undermined by subsequent events.” … , per se, to establish exceptional circumstances.”

Paydar v. State

243 Md. App. 441 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 22, 2019

So, clearly we have to be talking about statements or we wouldn’t be talking about hearsay exceptions. … In the absence of qualifying under another exception to the hearsay rule,8 they were not admissible under Md.