Case law

Moore v. State

154 Md. App. 578 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2004

Moreover, the State contends that even if appellant could qualify as an indigent, he did not make a necessary showing to establish indigency. Appellant’s arguments are based on the assumption that he is indigent. … Therefore, a defendant who demonstrates both an inability to “compensate competent private counsel” and to “provide all other necessary expenses of representation” clearly is considered indigent under the Public Defender

Creighton v. State

70 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1987

All these circumstances, while individually not enough to sustain Creighton's convictions, were sufficient in concert to establish his agency. II. … We cannot alter a sentence or sentences previously imposed to ensure a defendant does or does not qualify for a recidivist penalty.

Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Hoy

23 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 1974

It clearly provides that the Commission, “. . . upon rendering a decision with respect to any claim for compensation against an uninsured employer . . . shall...” impose the designated assessments. … We do not believe that any of the provisions of § 90 (a) and (b) and § 91 (a) qualify in any way the clear mandate of § 91 (b).

Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong

87 Md. App. 699 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1991

This dust count report is also clearly distinguishable from a police report. The making of a police report is a regular requirement of police duty. … By 1935, the medical and industrial literature had established that asbestos could cause life-threatening diseases in humans. It is reasonable to charge appellant with this knowledge.

Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

117 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1997

Proof of financial responsibility was a prerequisite to obtaining the necessary certification to qualify as an interstate motor carrier. … Our review of the proceedings below clearly indicates that this contention was raised with the circuit court.

Warwick Corp. v. Department of Transportation

61 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1985

First, it must be determined whether the Maryland Department of Transportation qualifies as an agency that was intended to be included within the coverage of the APA. … As previously related, MDOT established a notice-hearing certification/decertification procedure through its Advisory Committee.

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.

Gertz v. Maryland Department of the Environment

199 Md. App. 413 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2011

qualifies as a remedial sanction designed to compel future compliance. … Accordingly, the court’s *434 finding that Gertz willfully violated the 2004 Contempt Order is not clearly erroneous. B.

Bundy v. State

95 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1993

Each defendant, moreover, was (and still is) treated as a separate entity in terms of qualifying for the full allotment of peremptories. … The Improbability of Spontaneous Cloning: The construction of the subsection urged upon us by the State, moreover, could work absurd results, clearly not intended by the Legislature.

Yacko v. Mitchell

249 Md. App. 640 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 2021

Mitchell sent a “qualified written requests” for information. In total, Ms. Mitchell 12 sent six requests. In her third, dated November 17, 2014, Ms. … Mitchell, the Substitute Trustees were “clearly satisfied with the result.” Further, Ms.

In Re Nathaniel A.

160 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 3, 2005

Wolfe stated that appellant urged her to declare that Nathaniel’s “disability” qualified her for “SSI” benefits, but she declined to accept the doctor’s advice. Dr. … The incident with the fracture is clearly I find beyond a reasonable doubt if anybody wants me to, which I don’t need to. That was abuse ...

CANELA AND PEREZ v. State

193 Md. App. 259 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2010

Chiafari was qualified in the area of forensic collection was not preserved. See Harmony v. … The opinion at issue was therefore clearly within the field of expertise of a forensic DNA expert. VII.

Thorne v. Thorne

70 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1987

Thus, he argues “[i]t is impossible to conclude whether the trial judge used the correct standard in what was clearly prosecuted as a criminal contempt ...”. … That finding, on this record, was clearly erroneous. See Turner, supra. Nor can the result be justified on any other basis.

Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore

203 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2012

“Generally speaking, [t]he legislative function is principally concerned with the establishment of future rules of conduct.” Doe v. … It has been long established that there exists a general presumption in the law that an enactment is intended to have purely prospective effect.

Rigby v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

225 Md. App. 98 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2015

Because the former policy’s coverage did not offer sufficient recompense for the injuries and economic damages appellants sustained, they turned to the latter policy for adequate redress,2 claiming that Vanderford qualified … the jury that “a ‘dependent person’ is one who relies on substantial contributions from another person, without which he would be unable to afford the reasonable necessities of life” and, furthermore, that he need not “establish

Snyder v. Herbert Greenbaum & Associates, Inc.

38 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1977

Clearly a “lost volume seller” is not in as good a position as if there had been no breach, if he is confined to the § 2-708 (1) formula. … Our holding avoids a result that is clearly “inconsistent with common sense”. Our holding does not, however, dispose of this case.

Sullivan v. Auslaender

12 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1971

And in each, its finding was that the chancellor did not err rather than he was not clearly erroneous. … The mother of a girl 12 years of age and a boy 10 years of age, she was a physician, qualified as a pediatrician and a pathologist. She lectured in pathology at the Haifa Medical School. 8 .

Clark v. Seidel

25 Md. App. 139 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1975

No testimony was taken, but the facts which establish the basis for the legal interpretation on which the case turns are undisputed. … The law concerning interest on money owed was clearly stated by the Court of Appeals in Owens v. Graetzel, 146 Md. 361 , 126 A. 224 (1924).

Hippler v. State

83 Md. App. 325 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1990

Determinations by the trial judge regarding the weight to be accorded evidence and issues of witness credibility will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Byrd v. … Detective Tabor was duly qualified at trial as an expert regarding controlled dangerous substances, and it was established that he had previously testified as an expert concerning PCP. 3 .

Jackson v. 2109 Brandywine, LLC

180 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2008

The court did not permit such testimony, however, because Childs was not qualified as an expert. Calvin J. … To the extent that the court found that Mitchell was an agent of the Estate, its finding was clearly erroneous.