Case law

Butler v. State

91 Md. App. 515 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 1992

Findings and rulings made at a suppression hearing do not qualify as valid and final judgments. Cook v. … Each could well qualify as a separate crime.

Adams v. State

183 Md. App. 188 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2008

Before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the court shall designate from the jury list those jurors who have qualified after examination. … We do not establish any ironclad ritual to govern the calling of prospective jurors.

Rossville Vending MacHine Corp. v. Comptroller of Treasury

97 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1993

“establishment”). … It seems no court is immune to criticism for a failure to justify this step in its analysis. See David O. Stewart, “By the Book”, ABA Journal, July 1993, at 46-47.

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.

Thompson v. State

119 Md. App. 606 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1998

Arguendo, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish both an assault on and a theft (of narcotics) from Lyray Simpson as part of the “eleven thirty incident.” … Arguendo, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish an assault on Shannell Stewart as part of the “eleven thirty incident.”

Emory v. State

101 Md. App. 585 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1994

The first question is that of who is it who must be persuaded clearly and convincingly. … This is the “clearly erroneous” standard of appellate review. It was explicitly spelled out by State v.

Facey v. Facey

249 Md. App. 584 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2021

In reaching this conclusion, the judge also credited as “extremely [] believable” the testimony of Katherine Koppenhaver, who was qualified in the field of “Forensic Document Examiner.” Ms. … Facey clearly agreed to pay $75,000 to his former wife.

Baker v. State

130 Md. App. 281 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 2000

In its earlier statement of the exception, Curley qualified the verb “circumvents” with the limiting adverb “necessarily.” … The record clearly establishes, with no basis for a contrary inference, that the charges were nol grossed because of a legitimate belief that the charging documents were defective and because the defendants’ attorney would

Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva Power

226 Md. App. 691 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2016

The spoliation doctrine is well-established in Maryland. See Klupt v. Krongard, 126 Md. App. 179 (1999). … We concluded that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, and then addressed the sanction of dismissal. Given that Mr.

Daugherty v. State

40 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978

It was first established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 , 45 S. Ct. 280 , 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925). As the Maryland Court of Appeals stated in Mobley and King v. … This is clearly contrary to the statute and the case law. III. Officer Collins’ search of the appellant’s automobile also exceeded the permissible scope of searches for game law violations.

Vei Catonsville, LLC v. Einbinder Properties, LLC

212 Md. App. 286 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2013

Lipman’s appraisal using the income approach complies with, well, the testimony was that it complied with the standards of appraisal of property in the industry, he’s qualified, he has the necessary *304 experience and he … Terry Duncan, who was qualified as an expert in the field of real estate appraisal, also provided the rationale behind the use of an income approach, given the language of the Option: MR.

Hinton v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2023

Finally, the Court addressed “a common view among at least some practitioners that the entry of a nolo contendere plea by a person on probation immunizes that person against a later violation of probation, and as a result … The proffer of facts is clearly hearsay.

City Chevrolet Co. v. Wedeman

30 Md. App. 637 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1976

The trial judge sustained that objection and accepted the witness “as qualified to testify as to what automobiles sell for within his range of knowledge.” … “Such a relation clearly did not exist between the fraudulent act and the alleged damages in this case.” Judgment in favor of Ella Wedeman against The City Chevrolet Company for compensatory damages of $500.00 affirmed.

Mung Sen Tu v. State

97 Md. App. 486 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1993

This caveat was clearly enunciated at least as early as Frisby v. … The evidence was clearly relevant, for it tended to establish that Lisa was indeed shot while in the basement of *501 appellant’s home.

Chew v. Meyer

72 Md. App. 132 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 1987

There is simply no evidence to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Dr. Meyer and Chew concerning the insurance form at issue. … The bank initially determined that the applicants qualified for a loan of $74,000, but later informed them that an error had been made and $41,400 was the most the bank would lend them.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Seitz

110 Md. App. 355 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1996

Indeed, that result would be clearly at odds with the statutory language, and our opinion in Erie indicates quite the contrary. … As heretofore indicated, § 543(b) and (c) establish which insurer is liable for payment of PIP benefits.

American Home Assurance Co. v. Osbourn

47 Md. App. 73 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1980

Of course, every fact necessary to establish coverage need not be alleged. As the Court of Appeals held in the case of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. … The trial court granted the Commission’s motion under Rule 323 (b) raising preliminary objection on grounds of governmental immunity and Osbourn appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. O & B, Inc. v.

State Board of Physicians v. Bernstein

167 Md. App. 714 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 2006

Lyles was a biased witness, as he “is clearly on one side of [the CRNA collaboration] debate.” The ALJ observed that Dr. … In the case at bar, we are not dealing with a clearly erroneous factual finding or the erroneous admission of evidence.

Wheeler v. State

35 Md. App. 372 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 1977

The detective *374 further stated that he was attracted to the publication by its cover, which indicated clearly, as we have said, that it was concerned with Linda Lovelace. 2 At trial, the State, at the conclusion of the … Qualified as an Associate Judge of this Court, July 9, 1976. . Miss Lovelace became well-known because of her participation in the controversial motion picture “Deep Throat.” .

Stevenson v. State

94 Md. App. 715 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1993

In view of this defense, which was vigorously pursued throughout the trial, evidence as to the battery ten months earlier was clearly relevant. As Ms. … Illustrative of this is the principle that it is no right of an accused, when an accomplice is called as a witness against him, to have that accomplice informed of his constitutional right to claim immunity from testifying