Case law

Malcolm v. State

70 Md. App. 426 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1987

The import here is clearly that officers in the field are not expected to apply “rigid legal rules.” … We did not merely refine or qualify the ‘two-pronged test.’

Hall v. State

36 Md. App. 362 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1977

Moreover, Article 27, § 5 (b) of the Annotated Code of Maryland clearly authorizes the Public Defender to pay fees and expenses for professional and technical services rendered to indigent persons. … The scope of discovery established by Maryland Rules 400 and 406 and the decisions such as Wagonheim v. Md. State Bd. of Censors, supra, applies equally to all discovery devices.

State v. Amerman

84 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1990

Thus, while the “clearly erroneous” test demands some legally sufficient evidence for each and every element to be proved — to wit, that a prima facie case be established — Illi nois v. … We did not merely refine or qualify the ‘two-pronged test.’ We rejected it....” 466 U.S. at 732 , 104 S.Ct. at 2087.

Howard R. & D. Corp. v. IMH Columbia

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2025

If an ambiguity is present, and if that ambiguity is not clearly resolved by resort to extrinsic evidence, the general rule in favor of the unrestricted use of property will prevail and the ambiguity in a restriction … Costello was not qualified to opine about “project[ed] future earnings, future profits[.]” The trial court questioned IMH’s counsel about whether Mr.

Martin v. State

218 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2014

Under the Maryland Wiretap Act, he would, assuming that there was an “interception,” qualify as an “aggrieved person,” that is, “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person … Martin also had the opportunity to commit the crime, as he had been able to establish, through text messages, that the victim was at home the day of the crime.

Optic Graphics, Inc. v. Agee

87 Md. App. 770 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1991

This definition clearly “is based on the Restatement comment____” 13 Note, supra, at 1061. … On the facts of this case and the inferences deducible therefrom, we do not think that bad faith clearly was established with respect to the trade secrets claim.

Tharp v. Disabled American Veterans Department of Maryland, Inc.

121 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1998

State, 281 Md. 179, 182-83 , 377 A.2d 1169 (1977). *571 What Qualifies As “The Very Infrequent Harsh Case”? … rule establishing the time for appeal.” 266 Md. at 555 , 295 A.2d 470 .

Umerley v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY.

108 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1996

If a trucking facility failed to comply with the applicable exemption provisions and thus lost the right to exist as a trucking facility, it could only continue operations by qualifying as a new use. *502 The Umerleys operated … As this Court established in North v. St.

Green v. North Arundel Hospital Ass'n

126 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1999

The requisite showing of prejudice cannot be satisfied simply by establishing that a plaintiff has a physical or mental injury; the party seeking the exclusion must establish that the party’s appearance or conduct is likely … One vital element in determining the standard of care in a given circumstance is clearly the foreseeable consequences of committing an error.

Hebron v. State

13 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1971

The lower court’s factual finding that Hebron gave such permission was not clearly erroneous. Thus the officers were lawfully on the second floor. … It also noted: “[T]he defendant is now represented by Court-appointed counsel, qualified to explore possibilities available to the defendant to obtain a bail reduction: (1) the unique service offered by the Pre-trial Release

Programmers' Consortium, Inc. v. Clark

180 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2008

There is still a critical qualifying decision that will have to be made. … That is a finding of fact reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard.

Kohli v. LOOC, Inc.

103 Md. App. 694 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1995

) the employer continued to solicit applications from other qualified applicants following Kohli’s rejection. … In seeking review of the AL J’s conclusions, appellees did not dispute that appellant had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Triantis v. Triantis

408 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 2009

Triantis's equitable interest in the Parcel qualifies her as a "concurrent owner" within the meaning of section 14-107(a). … To establish standing as a concurrent owner under the partition statute, an equitable interest holder, like Mrs.

Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. INS. COMM'R. OF MD.

40 Md. App. 201 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1978

According to an underwriting consultant for GEICO during the time relevant to this case, Alan was qualified as a permissible risk under GEICO's reunderwriting guidelines, subject to "a surcharge factor ... to make the base … When the factual predicate establishes clearly that his client erred, the lawyer may endeavor to explain away the error, but he cannot undo acts that his client has performed.

Polisher v. State

11 Md. App. 555 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1971

We find that the evidence was sufficient in law to establish that White had “the guilty knowledge with respect to the Walsh vehicle prerequisite to a finding of an intent to defraud.” *584 We hold that the court was not clearly … so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.

Parker v. State

129 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1999

After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in so finding. … Appellant does not argue that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its factual findings that Ms.

CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC

202 Md. App. 307 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2011

Nevertheless, the Second Restatement also recognizes that a person who does not qualify as an intended beneficiary under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may qualify “if the beneficiary would be reasonable in relying on the promise … Appellants have failed to establish reversible error. D.

Kohler v. State

203 Md. App. 110 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2012

But clearly he is a knowing and willing participant in the distribution of marijuana. … And clearly they have, they have a meeting of the minds, although people in between to help them through that to engage in the distribution of marijuana. .

McCall v. State

9 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 19, 1970

State, 242 Md. 424, 428 , that this was no longer the rule and that the voluntary nature of defendant’s plea must be clearly established prior to a court’s accepting a guilty plea. … DONALD LARRY McCALL: Yes, sir. *208 THE COURT: Has anybody made any promise of a lesser sentence or probation or reward or immunity or anything else in order to induce you to plead nolo contendere ?

Roberts v. State

53 Md. App. 257 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1982

The trial court conducted a preliminary hearing, out of the presence of the jury, to permit the introduction of evidence to establish a proper foundation for the testimony. … The witness further testified that he had previously qualified as an expert on the training and handling of bloodhounds in the Charles County Circuit Court. Lt.