Case law

Parker v. Columbia Bank

91 Md. App. 346 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1992

The bank concedes that a “limited exception to the parol evidence rule permits the introduction of promissory fraud to establish that a written contract was fraudulently induced.” See Schmidt v. … The Parkers have merely alleged that Columbia failed to take certain actions that Columbia was clearly not required to take under the loan agreement.

Supervisor of Assessments of Baltimore City v. Friends School

67 Md. App. 508 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1986

Thus, “educational purposes,” unlike the “academic function” standard used by the tax court, clearly encompasses more than classroom activities. We hold, however, that under Md.Code Ann. … Art. 81, § 9(e)(2), supra, to qualify for an exemption the activities that occur in or on the subject property must directly relate to the educational goals of the institution.

Consumer Protection Division v. Luskin's, Inc.

120 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1998

The next most prominent language listed the purchase amounts necessary to qualify for the “big gift for two.” … Maryland common law principles are well-established and here applicable.

AMT Homes, LLC v. Fishman

228 Md. App. 302 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2016

Rule 14-305 does not require the court to ratify a foreclosure sale within a rigid sixty day time limit, nor does a delay by the court qualify as an established “other persons” exception to the common law requirement that … court determines whether a hearing is necessary, but “it may not set aside a sale without a hearing,” and must hold a hearing if “a hearing is requested and the exceptions . . . clearly

Steinhoff v. Sommerfelt

144 Md. App. 463 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2002

The Absence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) The second attack that the appellant mounts on the monetary award is that “the trial court erred by refusing to grant a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) … Although the appellant’s challenge is not clearly focused, its dominant thrust is that the fact-finding by the master in chancery was clearly erroneous. A hearing was held before a master in chancery on March 16, 1999.

Layton v. Howard County Board of Appeals

171 Md. App. 137 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

In the petition, Wyckoff contended that (1) Frisky’s did not qualify for the Special Exception under the HCZR; (2) Frisky’s is not a charitable institution and should not qualify for the special exception use approved by … According to the USDA, that qualifies as exhibition.

Baltimore Street Builders v. Stewart

186 Md. App. 684 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

Mate, 130 Md.App. 648, 658 [ 747 A.2d 743 ] (2000), Judge Adkins clearly cited and followed the above referenced cases: Both Emerson and Hallowell indicate that a strict application of the rule that a contract that violates … Judge Sally Adkins, speaking for this Court in DeReggi, said: [C]ircumstances may arise where a financially responsible and otherwise qualified builder fails to strictly comply with the licensing requirements.

Rowe v. State

62 Md. App. 486 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1985

Under a grant of immunity, Lane further testified that on December 18, 1981, he had travelled to Maryland for the purpose of modifying an Ingram submachine gun for Bratt by transforming it from semi-automatic to fully automatic … Clearly, the absolute preclusion of cross-examination pertaining to a witness’s motive for testifying would be an abuse of discretion, but beyond that we must look to such factors as the scope of interrogation permitted,

Sterling Homes Corp. v. Anne Arundel County

116 Md. App. 206 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1997

Pemberton cannot, of course, stand for the principle that any work performed under any type of permit wdl qualify as a permit for any subsequent construction performed on the same property. … Thus, although it did not say so explicitly, the Court clearly indicated that the permits granted for the warehouse were not “permits” for a refinery that satisfied the first prong of establishing vested rights; this decision

Brown v. State

39 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1978

S. 150, 154 , clearly dispositive of this issue. … Clearly, this goes beyond the confines of Brady.

Lucado v. State

40 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1978

The legislative history of § 461A brings both questions — application and interpretation — more clearly into focus. … E. 1080 (Va., 1909), in which the Virginia court, dealing with a “seduction” statute, said of divorced women: “They have known man, and, possessed of the knowledge which such intercourse imparts, if chaste, are immune from

Arroyo v. Rosen

102 Md. App. 101 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1994

The circuit court therefore did not err in finding no absolute privilege here. 3 *111 The jury instruction on qualified privilege Having found that Dr. … Bulkley—is clearly marked “Confidential.” The regulations of the university governing the inquiry process reflect a deep concern with the confidentiality of the proceedings.

Mayor & City Cncl. of Ocean City v. Washington Post

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2026

no longer qualify as personnel records protected from disclosure under the MPIA. … The record establishes that UOF Reports are not created by supervisory officers for performance evaluation purposes.

LaValley v. Rock Point Aero Sport Club, Inc.

104 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1995

. § 14-833. 5 *127 Before a final order or foreclosure may be issued, however, the amount the owner is required to pay in order to redeem his interest in the property must be established. § 14-829. … We further note that, had the trial court executed the order to foreclose when it first qualified for execution, it would not have erred.

Silbert v. State

12 Md. App. 516 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 1971

A review of the record indicates clearly that the State fully complied with the court’s order, and we thus find no merit in appellants’ argument to the contrary. … Appellant Shreck also complains that the State’s witness Kelley was permitted to testify as an expert in lottery operations without first having qualified as such.

Henderson v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.

78 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1989

Zuckerman and in various provisions of the OYOC Policy Manual, it is clearly stated that Zuckerman was entitled to choose his manner of transportation to Virginia. … Whereas qualifying for workers’ compensation benefits requires only that the injury occur out of and in the course of employment, recovery under the doctrine of respondeat superior necessitates that the employee be acting

Thomas v. Giant Food, LLC

174 Md. App. 103 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2007

Accordingly, Thomas’s average weekly wage must be calculated by means of the basic method established in LE section 9-602(a). … The General Assembly has clearly stated, in LE section 9-615, that an injured worker’s “wage earning capacity” includes income, during his period of disability, from the injury-producing job and from other jobs.

Montgomery County Board of Education v. Horace Mann Insurance

154 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2003

The MCC also empowered the County to establish the MCSIP. See MCC § 20-37(e). … We now review the relevant extrinsic evidence to establish whether there is a potentiality of coverage.

Conover v. Conover

224 Md. App. 366 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2015

In child access disputes, “when the appellate court views the ultimate conclusion of the chancellor founded upon sound legal principles and based upon factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, the chancellor’s decision … Super 1995) (Marriage and establishment of a household did not create parenthood by estoppel); and A.H. v.

Jackson v. State

207 Md. App. 336 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2012

Clearly, Mr. Jones’s transcribed statement to defense counsel is hearsay. … However, “there is no litmus test that courts must follow to establish adequate corroboration or trustworthiness.” Id.