Case law

Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury

215 Md. App. 244 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2013

He instead asserts that he does not qualify as an “employee” subject to taxation: Bert is an employee of a domestic corporation and is not an officer of a corporation. … The filing of “zero return” tax forms clearly meets the requirements of TG § 13-705.

Bell v. Heitkamp, Inc.

126 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1999

Without such facts, the [a]ppellants are unable to establish the causation element of their claim. … We hold that the conduct of appellants in this case, while clearly negligent, was not so extraordinary or outrageous as to raise that conduct to the qualitative level necessary to establish a foundation for the award of punitive

Woodson v. Saldana

165 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Reservists must accrue at least 50 “retirement points” in a calendar year to have that year qualify toward retirement. See 10 U.S.C.A. § 12732 (a)(2). … It was clearly a violation of the Court’s Order. So I’m going to order that you ... reimburse Mr.

Jordan v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2026

In his view, “the very existence of more than one arrow key clearly told the jury that there were other mail carrier robberies. … at 638). 31  “[When] establishing whether a group of activities qualifies as a modus operandi, a court may consider each characteristic of the method used as a whole,

Royal Investment Group, LLC v. Wang

183 Md. App. 406 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 2008

Id. “ ‘[I]n other words, to establish a contract the minds of the parties must be in agreement as to its terms.’ ” Mitchell v. AARP Life Ins. Program, New York Life Ins. … We believe these rulings clearly prohibited Royal from further trespassing onto the Property.

Miles v. State

88 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1991

Even though the jury remains composed of competent and qualified jurors, the judge has remolded it with a new “tilt.” … bad faith on the part of the prosecutor in the statement of what the prosecutor expects to prove or establish substantial prejudice resulting therefrom.

Stisser v. SP Bancorp, Inc.

234 Md. App. 593 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2017

In this way, “restrictions on personal jurisdiction ‘are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. … Clearly, Green did not intend to establish continuing obligations in Maryland by forming Searchlight.

Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc.

153 Md. App. 91 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 2003

Thus, the order would clearly seem to be final and appealable!.]” Id. at 402 , 620 A.2d 305 . … “[A]ny disputes” clearly includes a dispute over whether joint and several liability applies.

Dalmo Sales of Wheaton, Inc. v. Steinberg

43 Md. App. 659 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 1979

If exclusion of the dictabelt was error at all, it was clearly harmless. IV. … As the Court pointed out in Sherwood and Austin , however, despite the analogy, the liability under § 359 rests clearly upon the theory of negligence — not that of nuisance.

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Elliott

170 Md. App. 369 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2006

A major premise is thus established. … The appellant, Maryland Board of Physicians, both under its present name and under its former name of Board of Physician Quality Assurance, clearly qualifies as an “Agency” within the definition of § 10-202(b).

Superior Court of California Ex Rel. Jones v. Ricketts

153 Md. App. 281 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2003

(b) Remedies when defense established. … (c) Failure to establish defense.

Green v. State

25 Md. App. 679 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1975

Beyond that, although offered no immunity, his cooperation would not go unnoticed in regard to his own investigation. As rumors increased, so too did Mr. Green’s trepidation. The $750.00 cash payment by Mr. … That ruling clearly was not error.

Matthews v. State

89 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1991

In Maryland, in order to qualify as privileged under § 9-105, the communication must be confidential; that is, it must be made in reliance on the marital relationship. Coleman, 281 Md. at 542 , 380 A.2d 49 . … What both sides have clearly overlooked here is the most basic component of the privilege: a communication of any kind, however basic or rudimentary. Ms.

Sass v. Andrew

152 Md. App. 406 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 2003

That finding is not clearly erroneous. … Clearly, then, Sass made no affirmative misrepresentations by Andrew on which Andrew relied.

Ewachiw v. Director of Finance of Baltimore City

70 Md. App. 58 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1987

In the first place, we are not dealing with a procedure established for the benefit of civil defendants but rather with a management device created primarily for the benefit of the court system itself, enabling it to clear … For Judge Ward to have done what is regularly done by his colleagues in Baltimore City hardly qualifies as a clear abuse of discretion. As the Court of Appeals noted, in Stanford v.

Collins v. State

52 Md. App. 186 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1982

The requirement of general acceptance in the scientific community assures that those most qualified to assess the general validity of a scientific method will have the determinative voice.” … This professional should also be able to qualify as an expert in order to aid the court in evaluating the procedures followed.

Kouadio v. State

235 Md. App. 621 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 2018

The baby had no pulse, and the paramedics were unable to intubate Amir or establish access for an IV line. … State, supra, 417 Md. 31, which also is not cited, though it clearly is on point. See Md. Rule 19-303.3(a)(3).

Tabs Associates, Inc. v. Brohawn

59 Md. App. 330 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1984

The trial court’s dismissal of Tabs’ claim that Mary Brohawn had violated the covenant not to compete, based on its conclusion that Tabs failed to present a prima facie case, was, therefore, clearly erroneous. … Goldberger, 231 Md. 1, 6-8 , 188 A.2d 155 (1963), the Court of Appeals said: While a person may not be restrained from engaging in any business or vocation (useful to the community) which he is qualified to conduct or perform

Haigley v. Department of Health

128 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1999

Clearly, *214 the Department’s exegesis of H.G. §§ 4-101 and 4-102 has controlled its application of the provisions of the PIA. … The Department is with *228 out authority to circumvent the PIA’s disclosure provisions in the name of administrative efficiency, nor may it become a fortress of secrecy immune from the PIA by virtue of its mission to investigate

Behrel v. State

151 Md. App. 64 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 2003

Clearly the delay must be explained by the witnesses. … Clearly, Miller’s testimony buttressed Curtis’s account of abuse.