Case law

Burroughs v. Raynor

56 Md. App. 432 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1983

“Verify” means “[t]o prove to be true; to confirm; to establish the truth, correctness, or authenticity of . .. . ” New Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary of the English Language p. 932. … Speaking through Judge Oppenheimer, the court held: Clearly, the provisions of [Art.

Dickson v. State

188 Md. App. 489 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2009

“It is for the court to say whether [the witness’s] silence is justified, and to require [the witness] to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ ” Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 (quoting … Of course, the State also could remedy this problem by offering a witness in that situation immunity for his or her testimony against the defendant. 13 .

Walker v. State

190 Md. App. 577 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2010

FACTS Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it was established that on March 17, 2008, the appellant repeatedly hit Tahlene Shipley and bit her on the cheek when the two became involved in a disagreement … We held that “[t]he record clearly demonstrates that Davis did not waive her right to counsel.” Id. at 381, 641 A.2d 941 .

Evans v. State

113 Md. App. 347 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

Cornish clearly does not hold that the police may not free the defendant and formally charge him later. The majority cites another Maryland case, McChan v. … It would be far better to establish a rule that encourages consultation rather than establish one that punishes conscientious police for their desire to do what is proper, as well as lawful.

Newman v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2018

What has been omitted, inadvertently or advertently, in such a formulation is the critical qualifier “unfair.” … Even in a case where the defendant might not be challenging the establishment of his identity, it would still be incumbent on the State to prove the identity of the defendant and to establish his criminal agency.

Premium of America, LLC v. Sanchez

213 Md. App. 91 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2013

of law, established an “intimate nexus.” … It must clearly appear that the parties intend to recognize him as the primary party in interest and as privy to the promise.” (quoting Mackubin v.

Jones v. State

44 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1979

Jones established ownership to six (6) of the rings, and they were returned to her. The trooper said that "[t]he others were stolen." … In his opinion for the Court of Appeals, Judge Orth made it very clear that only intentional conduct can qualify as overreaching. Thus far, everyone seems to be in agreement.

Merling v. Merling

98 Md. App. 243 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1993

Evidence is material if it tends to establish a proposition that has legal significance to the litigation. … The circumstances had clearly changed, however, demonstrating a basis for a change of mind by the testatrix.

Dakrish, LLC v. Raich

209 Md. App. 119 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2012

Raich had been qualified before, that there was not “any question” that Mr. … I think ... if you can find a location—not in this immediate area—clearly, I think there is no question that you’re qualified to have a license.

Lubore v. RPM Associates, Inc.

109 Md. App. 312 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1996

One who conceals facts that materially qualify affirmative representations may be liable for fraud. Finch, 57 Md.App. at 239 , 469 A.2d 867 . … In addition to the duty element, appellant clearly satisfied the other elements of the tort.

Reese v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

177 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2007

Clearly, the Secretary’s decision was not “adjudicatory” or “quasi-judicial.” … The decision determining that one is qualified for admission is the flip side of a determination that one is not qualified.

Cortez v. State

220 Md. App. 688 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2014

Viewing the evidence elicited in the light most favorable to the State, the prevailing party, the following was established at trial. … Detective Troy Tippett of the Montgomery County Police Department was qualified as an expert in the field of criminal street gangs and gang activity.

Sallie v. Tax Sale Investors, Inc.

149 Md. App. 141 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2002

[but] rather, an exclusion from coverage,” and coverage could not be established by waiver or estoppel. Id. at 743 , 451 A.2d 952 . In addition, in Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. … did not qualify as use of the premises, or as necessary or incidental to the declared uses.

Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

66 Md. App. 46 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1986

Conduct that would qualify as extreme and outrageous when committed by a creditor should not have to be accepted from an employer. Moreover, Dick v. … these two comments is misleading and unfortunate, for we do not believe that the committee intended to suggest that Maryland recognizes a distinct tort for the negligent infliction of mental distress, as these comments clearly

Crawley v. General Motors Corp.

70 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 1987

It views section 25A as merely establishing highly technical criteria for measuring occupational deafness. … Because the language of section 25A does not clearly reveal the legislative intent concerning disablement, we must examine the legislative history of that section. Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, supra .

Kasmir v. Retail Services & Systems

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2025

She further argued that her only burden was to “demonstrate that the retaliators were aware of her protected activity,” which she had “clearly established” by demonstrating that “the primary decision makers in each decision … “Not every complaint about discrimination or unfairness, however, qualifies as protected activity.” Id. at 507. Rather, the alleged discrimination must be “connected to a protected class.” Id. Accord Tomanovich v.

Greater Towson Council of Community Associations v. DMS Development, LLC

234 Md. App. 388 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2017

be informal so as to encourage citizen participation, we think that absent a reasonable agency or other regulation providing for a more formal method of becoming a party, anyone clearly … Our task is to now apply these well-established principles to the circumstances of the case sub judice. A.

Goldsberry v. State

182 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2008

Such minimal evidence plainly does not, by itself, establish the necessary elements of a conspiracy. … Thus, the trial court was well within its bounds to restrict appellant’s qualified right to counsel of choice. E.

Everdell v. Carroll

25 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1975

Peterson, a traffic engineer who qualified as an expert in the field, employed by the Carrolls to make a study of the right-of-way and recommend traffic control devices for the safety of those residing on the property and … We cannot say that his conclusion was clearly erroneous. Rule 1086. J. F. Johnson Lumber Co. v. Magruder, 218 Md. 440 , 147 A. 2d 208 ; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407 ; and Millson v.

Perry v. State

150 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 2002

Turner testified at the trial under a grant of immunity from the State. Turner and the appellant had met while serving terms in prison together. They remained good friends. … The rule states clearly that if a party timely requests an instruction, it is error not to give the instruction (or its equivalent) if it is generated by the evidence.