Case law

Moura v. Randall

119 Md. App. 632 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1998

Moreover, given a trial judge’s discretion in permitting a witness to testify as an expert, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that Lipsitt would not so qualify. … The record clearly established that the dog had never “growled at, bitten, or previously attacked any person.” Id. at 476 , 476 A.2d 227 .

King v. Marriott International, Inc.

160 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2005

terminated from her position in appellee’s employee benefits department because she voiced objections to her co-workers and supervisor about the proposed transfer of funds from an employee Medical Plan (“Medical Plan or Plan”), qualified … A public policy that is clearly demonstrated by a statute or regulation may be considered so long as it is relevant to the conduct at issue in the case.

Medi-Cen Corp. v. Birschbach

123 Md. App. 765 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1998

Q: And that the monies that would come as a result of those bills that were generated would then be deposited into an account which you had established in cooperation with Medi-Cen at NationsBank, correct? … Because the value of such assets may, in certain circumstances, be discounted, it is appropriate for the trier of fact to hear qualified opinion testimony on their fairly realizable value. Constructora Maza, Inc. v.

Jones v. State

222 Md. App. 600 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2015

What is more, “Maryland common law provides well-established protections for individuals against being twice put in jeopardy.” Id. at 408. … risk of death” is “undoubtedly dangerous to human life” and that the “manner in which” the particular assault in that case had been committed, that is, by repeatedly dropping a boulder on the victim’s head, was “also clearly

Schneider v. Little

206 Md. App. 414 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2012

The CAT scan was clearly relevant. Schneider argued that the CAT scan would have established the size of Little’s aorta. … The CAT scan could have conclusively established the size of the aorta, and therefore, established whether there was or was not a size mismatch between the aorta and the graft.

PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSTIY HOSPITAL v. Wilson

99 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1994

Merchent, 744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005 , 105 S.Ct. 1359 , 84 L.Ed.2d 380 (1985), clearly illustrates why the cases cited by PUH are inapposite. … The Camelback II court then noted that even though the plaintiffs here clearly have a significant interest in obtaining relief ...

Howard Street Jewelers, Inc. v. Wegad

87 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1991

The Rule quite clearly requires, not only a prompt objection to the court’s instructions, but a statement of the basis for that objection as well. … It did not include any portion of the trial transcript even though appellant’s argument depended upon the establishment of at least a limited factual predicate.

Standifur v. State

64 Md. App. 570 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1985

Part (1), which is all that came in at trial, is clearly relevant. Part (2), the disserving portion, is irrelevant and was excluded from trial. … In the evidentiary hearing before the court, the State arguably established that Sly 'suspected that the gun was probably stolen.

Joseph v. State

190 Md. App. 275 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2010

Clearly, the court understood from the prosecutor’s remarks that appellant had expressed a desire to “release” counsel. … Here, however, the evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain appellant's convictions. Indeed, he does not argue otherwise. [4] 4.

Muti v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp.

197 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2011

Actually, this could have been a motion for summary judgment at this point, but it could be considered—I mean, because substantively it is an issue and that person is clearly a necessary party. … Karetzky was not qualified to opine on the appropriate standards of care is obviated by our opinion that appellants made out a viable theory of medical malpractice using Dr.

State v. Seward

220 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2014

State, supra, 423 Md. 156, which recently established a right of appeal from the “denial” of a petition for writ of actual innocence, does not apply here, because the “grant” of an actual innocence petition, unlike its … The records, therefore, do not qualify as “newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 600-01 & n.9; Love v. State, 95 Md. App. 420, 430, cert. denied, 331 Md. 480 (1993).

Madrid v. State

247 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2020

But the video recording clearly established that Detective Cruz did provide Madrid the advice of rights required by Miranda. … And there’s a list of what crimes qualify as underlying crimes.

Blackston v. Blackston

145 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2002

Blackston’s claim “that he was found in contempt without properly waiving his right to counsel”; (2) “the record establishes that the circuit court adequately protected Mr. … I’m sorry for the problems and difficulties, but if you run into financial difficulty that does not permit you to hire the attorney you desire, you should qualify—you should seek to qualify for the services of the Public

Talbot County v. Town of Oxford

177 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2007

Michaels clearly qualified as projects “for which growth allocation has been awarded by [the Town of St. Michaels], but under Bill 933, would be considered unutilized and accordingly would revert to the County.” … NR § 8 — 1809(h) clearly provides that the action of the county is a mere proposal for amendment. By subsection (i), actual amendment does not occur until a proposal is approved by the Critical Area Commission.

Blum v. Blum

59 Md. App. 584 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

Our scope of review is limited to whether those findings are clearly erroneous in light of all the evidence. … held that if one of the spouses incurs debt during the marriage to purchase marital property, and that debt or a portion thereof is outstanding when a monetary award is being considered, the value of the marital property qualified

Donati v. State

215 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2014

Thus, there clearly was evidence connecting appellant to the 11 e-mails submitted from these addresses. … Relevance Appellant contends that the message was irrelevant because it was not clearly linked to other evidence in the case.

Ochse v. Henry

202 Md. App. 521 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2011

Merger The Ochses argue that the facts presented at trial clearly establish the existence of fraudulent misrepresentation or mutual mistake. … “When land sold by metes and bounds or by any other definite description is estimated to contain a specified quantity [of land] qualified by the words ‘more or less,’ the statement of quantity is construed as a *543 matter

Myers v. State

58 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1984

Myers avers that the trial judge violated the rule established in Jones v. … Jones clearly delineated when a particularized need is shown.

Wesko v. G.E.M., Inc.

19 Md. App. 161 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 23, 1973

The Court said, at 97: “This absolute immunity extends to the judge as well *170 as to witnesses and parties to the litigation, for defamatory statements uttered in the course of a trial or contained in pleadings, affidavits … The law in Maryland has been clearly stated by the Court of Appeals in a number of cases.

Disclosure Information Group v. Comptroller of the Treasury

72 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1987

Clearly, a reasoning mind could reasonably have reached the conclusion reached by the Tax Court, that the subscription lists were tangible personal property, consistent with a proper application of the legal principles set … The Internal Revenue Service promulgated a regulation, Treas.Reg. § 1.48-l(f), providing that “[i]ntangible personal property, such as patents, copyrights, and subscription lists, does not qualify” for the credit.