Case law

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. .

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.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Wholey

139 Md. App. 642 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2001

The tort of -wrongful discharge is a narrow exception to this well-established principle. … So long as Wholey’s job consisted of investigating possible criminal activity by co-employees, he would be immune from being discharged, because terminating his employment necessarily would interfere with the supposed public

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.

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.

Marcantonio v. Moen

177 Md. App. 664 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2007

Absent such testimony, [plaintiffs have failed to establish the element of probable cause. (Emphasis added.) … A number of jurisdictions have not adopted the loss of chance doctrine, while others have not clearly resolved whether to recognize the doctrine.

Brewer v. State

220 Md. App. 89 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2014

Photographs of the vestibule introduced as exhibits at the 1 Whether the area in front of the main front door would technically qualify as a “vestibule,” or the “first threshold of the building,” William … I think here we are clearly in the Plain View Doctrine.

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.

Medical Management & Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Health & Health Hygiene

225 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2015

2 Qualifying conditions are set forth in a “Table of Rare and Expensive Disease” in the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”). COMAR 10.09.69.17. through the REM program. … The circuit court, in granting the Department’s Motion to Dismiss, expressly stated 9 that MMARS had “clearly not exhausted [all] administrative remedies.”

Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc.

94 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 1992

First, the statute’s drafters clearly never envisioned the relative ease and frequency with which automobiles are stolen today. … The State does not raise the defense of governmental immunity on this appeal. Accordingly, we will not address that issue. Md.Rule 8-131.

Richardson v. State

14 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1972

He estimated the time of the injury at about 3:00-3:30 p.m. on April 1; however, he qualified this estimate by stating that it was “a very gross estimate because there is no way we can determine when a wound occurred, when … Applying the rule enunciated in Williams, supra, and Metz, supra to the evidence in its totality, we conclude that Judge Murphy as trier of the fact was not clearly in error in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant

Simpson v. State

214 Md. App. 336 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 2013

[Therefore, t]he prosecuting attorney clearly was using the defendant’s silence as support for the State’s case. Id. at 263-64, 999 A.2d 1029 . … of his or her detection canine qualifies as expert testimony and, therefore, requires adherence of Md.

Hagez v. State

131 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2000

Documents in the car established Mr. Hagez’s residence at 2012 Fon-Du-Lac Road in Richmond. … We concluded that appellant did not qualify for post conviction relief, stating: ‘When the conviction was reversed and the judgment was vacated, the applicant was no longer qualified for the post conviction act.”

Wallach v. Board of Education

99 Md. App. 386 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1994

Rule l-502(a) provides: For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during … This case clearly turns on the credibility of Wallach as a witness. Wallach is the plaintiff in this case, and is one of three witnesses testifying on his behalf.

Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Prigel Family Creamery

206 Md. App. 264 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2012

The [appellants’] argument is essentially that only the sale of fruits and vegetables qualifies as the product which can be sold from either a market or stand. … In its petition for special exception, the Creamery clearly stated that it sought to establish a farm market, “or alternatively ... a Farmer’s Roadside Stand per BCZR § 404.4C.” (Emphasis added).

State v. Paynter

234 Md. App. 252 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2017

In this case, that fact was indisputably established. … This complaint is clearly an appellate afterthought.

Beeman v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

105 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1995

Moreover, “there certainly is no reason to think judges or juries [or guardians] are better qualified than appropriate professionals in making [medical] decisions.” … To justify flexibility with respect to dosages, sufficient evidence to establish medical necessity must be presented to the CRP.

Channer v. State

94 Md. App. 356 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1993

Defense counsel asserted: “Clearly that is an incriminating statement when you want to come clean and basically do the right thing____ Clearly, there is interrogation without Miranda . … Thereafter, Detective Holub was recalled to the stand and was qualified as an expert on drug trafficking. He was then questioned, in essence, regarding the significance of all of the evidence gathered in the case.

In Re Sonny E. Lee

132 Md. App. 696 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2000

The report concludes that Sonya “is clearly the most qualified individual at this time to be appointed as Guardian” and that she “has established not only her willingness to serve in that position but has shown that she has … (c) Selection by court. — (1) Among persons with equal priority the court shall select the one best qualified of those willing to serve.

Dennis v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

6 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1969

The court said the State “qualified (the statement) as to being voluntary.” The defense indicated that it desired to offer evidence and the appellant was called to the stand. … The privilege against self-incrimination was well established in the English common law by the middle of the seventeenth century.