Case law

Hoffman v. UNITED IRON AND METAL COMPANY, INC.

108 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1996

Adverse use for the prescriptive period results in immunity from liability on the part of the user for his acts of use during the prescriptive period. *127 9. … “[I]n any tort case a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence the basis for an award of punitive damages.” ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334 , 361 n. 6, 667 A.2d 116 (1995).

Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

227 Md. App. 554 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2016

Yuan has clearly identified a state public policy mandate for his common law wrongful discharge claim for damages against appellee Johns Hopkins University (JHU or Hopkins). … established public policy.

Hill v. Baltimore County

86 Md. App. 642 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1991

Clearly, the statute provides total and permanent incapacity for duty. We do not feel Mr. Hill has met his burden in this regard. Dr. … If the Medical Board finds him or her qualified and the Board of Trustees finds him or her eligible, the applicant may be awarded a pension without the need to do anything further.

Pepper v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

111 Md. App. 49 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1996

He is definitely qualified from the standpoint of education and training, and he has had a hand on him. He was the guy who diagnosed this child, for heavens sake. … Statements made in a learned treatise are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if established as a reliable authority by the ■ testimony or admission of the witness. Md.

Siegel v. Comptroller of Maryland

186 Md. App. 411 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2009

And the other thing that I can say is that it appears that the—well, clearly, there can be more than one motivation for any event. … Clearly, the gifts would have been taxable if made pursuant to testamentary bequests.

Killie v. State

14 Md. App. 465 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1972

He testified that the smokers on September 17 congregated in the kitchen as did the clearly-established marihuana smokers on September 19. … The testimony as to September 19 established that marihuana was kept in the kitchen and that the “pipes” for smoking marihuana were kept in the kitchen.

Ball v. State

57 Md. App. 338 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1984

qualified as “the same offense” under the Bloekburger test. 4 The Court explained, at 459 U.S. at---, 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 543 -544: “The rule of statutory construction noted in Whalen [v. … With respect to such situations, the law was clearly stated by Chief Judge Sobeloff in Williams v.

Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Paramount Mortgage Services, Inc.

184 Md. App. 120 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2009

The Settlement was clearly a separate transaction, and not a fulfillment of the original loan. … It is not clear in this case whether Paramount qualifies as a creditor without notice of an Ameriquest mortgage.

Schlossman v. State

105 Md. App. 277 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1995

These acts clearly establish that appellant committed a common law misdemeanor battery against the victim. See Kellum v. … Noting that “death is not now the usual ... consequence of an abortion,” and that the recipient is comparatively immune from danger, the Court held that Worthington properly was indicted for manslaughter.

Von Lusch v. State

31 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1976

Have the public officials the right to aid in the maintenance of a hazard to the lives and health of the residents of a community when that enterprise has clearly established itself as a danger to the community and a nuisance … It is but a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in considering whether the element of intent has been established.

Martin v. State

113 Md. App. 190 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1996

Con *210 necticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 , 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1879 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961): “The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test … As is now well established, “[t]he ...

Gilroy v. SVF Riva Annapolis LLC

234 Md. App. 104 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2017

And in this section it appears that the legislature was clearly trying to carve out . . . the exception for the asbestos cases. … Statutes of repose are designed to establish “an absolute bar to an action or to provide a grant of immunity to a class of potential defendants after a given time period.” Anderson v.

A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC

223 Md. App. 240 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2015

The establishment’s principal business will be the sale of foods and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state. 2. … Thus the reasoning in Price clearly applies to the instant case: If a domestic LLC cannot, by “negative implication,” file or maintain suit, then surely a foreign LLC containing an express bar to such legal action cannot

Barber v. Eastern Karting Co.

108 Md. App. 659 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1996

Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Woodbridge based on the anticipatory release because the evidence on the record purportedly establishes a genuine dispute as to whether appellant fully intended … Id. at 512 n. 10 (“We do not attribute to the legislature the intent to immunize commercial whitewater outfitters ... from liability for intentional or reckless misconduct or gross negligence....

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Gregorie

131 Md. App. 317 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2000

We conclude that the present case, however, presents a circumstance that qualifies as prejudice justifying disclaimer of coverage under any of these standards. … established the insured’s negligence”); Western Farm Bureau Mut.

Tedesco v. Tedesco

111 Md. App. 648 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1996

He found there was a lack of trust and confidence in the other party necessary to the establishment of a confidential relationship. We are unable to say his decision on this issue was clearly erroneous. Md. … The trial court clearly erred.

Alimchandani v. Goings

39 Md. App. 353 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1978

Greene, M.D., of New York City,, who qualified as an expert in anesthesiology. Based on his examination of the hospital records, Dr. … App. 239, 248 , 310 A. 2d 569 (1973), we stated: “ ‘The Court of Appeals and this Court have consistently held that if jury instructions, when read as a whole, clearly set forth the applicable law, there is no reversible

Loker v. State

2 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1967

Beginning in June 1958 there was also the evidence of the appellant’s activities in the “less cash” transactions and while guilt cannot be established by proof that an accused committed other crimes “it is firmly established … It was clearly presented that the jury must find “a •taking from the possession of the town.”

Lieberman v. Lieberman

81 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1990

An agreement establishing family support which is clearly identifiable as child support cannot change that basic feature of child support. … The parties agreed they would consider modification under certain circumstances but no specific figures were established.

State v. Sizer

230 Md. App. 640 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2016

It will not disturb either the determinations or the weight given to them, unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.” Id. (Emphasis supplied). … Had he simply stood quietly by, as did his companions, he would have been immune from any police restraint, but a guilty conscience leads to flawed judgment.