Case law

Thurman v. State

211 Md. App. 455 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

The State asserts: No court in Maryland has ever held that a crime that is not otherwise a qualifying offense becomes “relevant to the witness’s credibility” if the conduct involved a police officer. … This third step is clearly a matter of trial court discretion. King v. State, 407 Md. 682, 698-699 , 967 A.2d 790 (2009) (quoting State v.

Lamb v. State

141 Md. App. 610 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2001

The line of cases emanating from the United States Supreme Court that discusses immunity of police officers and other public officials and the exclusionary rule in the context of what constitutes good faith are instructive … Because the *632 issue here involves liberty as opposed to protecting public officials from personal liability, the standard should be higher than that set in the civil qualified immunity cases. Moreover, in Malley v.

S.B. Thomas, Inc. v. Thompson

114 Md. App. 357 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1997

Bark, 79 Md.App. at 79-81 , 555 A.2d 542 , that we undertook for the first time to explore the significance of the qualifier “essential” and to ask, “What is the difference between an essential trial de novo and a true trial … The causal connection was not clearly apparent from the paralysis itself or the circumstances surrounding *379 it, nor was the connection a matter within the common knowledge of laymen.

Davis v. Petito

197 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2011

Leffew and Smith both were qualified and accepted by the court as experts. … Grace and Cordy cases; and that, under that test, Silberg clearly should not have been precluded from testifying. We disagree.

Boyd v. State

22 Md. App. 539 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1974

purpose the driver must, to obey the traffic laws, constantly note its speed, and as well the speed of other automobiles which pass it, or which it passes, in terms of miles per hour, and so gain experience which should qualify … Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt.

Everhart v. State

20 Md. App. 71 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1974

He established *108 his past experience with marihuana seeds, with marihuana residue and with marihuana plants. He established his ability to recognize it by sight and by smell. … He testified that he had been qualified on previous occasions to testify in court on the identification of growing marihuana plants. We hold that there was no abuse of discretion in permitting him to testify.

Williams v. State

246 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2020

They then become disqualified, not qualified to serve. … We accept the suppression court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, “but we review de novo the court’s application of the law to its findings of fact.” Pacheco v.

Whack v. State

94 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 27, 1992

As this issue concerns a question of fact, we will not set aside the trial court’s finding unless it was clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 8-131(c). … sub judice in that there, as here, the issue presented concerned whether an alleged declaration against the penal *123 interest of an unavailable witness, offered by the State against the accused in a criminal trial, (1) qualified

Chilcoat v. State

155 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2004

The evidence was clearly sufficient for the jury to conclude that Chilcoat intended to inflict a serious physical injury on Keene. II. … In Thomas , we articulated restrictions on the nature of the movement that would qualify as “carrying.”

Heller v. Department of Natural Resources

161 Md. App. 299 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2005

Thus, Heller also established that he was “moved by a concern for the public well-being.” … On that mixed question of fact and law, the documents reviewed above clearly profess Heller’s conviction that DNR violated section 5-908.1.

Worthen v. State

42 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 1979

that proof of one tends to establish the other, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of a crime on trial. … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors

Meadowridge Industrial Center Ltd. Partnership v. Howard County

109 Md. App. 410 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1996

the operation will be conducted in an environmentally sound manner (§ 124(F)(2)(g)); 8) if part of the area is to be used for retail sales, that area will provide safe ingress and egress for retail customers and will be clearly … Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County proposed a zoning ordinance that would have deemed all existing airports and airstrips non-conforming uses; as such, those airports and airstrips would have had to close down if they could not qualify

Mayor & City Cncl. of Baltimore v. Lambert

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 2025

Maryland has no standard for determining whether an official is sufficiently high-ranking to qualify for protection under Morgan. … Appellants’ burden was to demonstrate that each official, individually, qualifies for protection under the Morgan doctrine.

Wieland v. State

101 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1994

Those qualifying contingencies could not even come into play unless the case were going to be remanded in any event. … Clearly, those latter, incremental, and more remote intended purposes are *40 specific intents.

Baker v. State

39 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1978

Our conclusion rested upon the well-established principle that, given a fair trial, the fact of an illegal arrest will not vitiate a conviction. Frisbie v. … Where, as here, the identity of an individual is characterized as the “illegal fruit,” “in the final analysis,” what is sought “is no less than an immunity from any prosecution.” Crews v.

Taylor v. Fishkind

207 Md. App. 121 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

Merrick testified that she is not certified in lead paint inspection and is not certified as a lead paint risk assessor, she is not qualified to render an opinion about the source of a person’s lead exposure. … Jazminn then claims that this statement clearly indicates that the circuit court based its decision as to summary judgment on its conclusion that Jazminn’s mother’s testimony was not credible, and therefore, Dr.

Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc.

99 Md. App. 477 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 1994

In that case the appellants clearly bypassed the Director, thus warranting dismissal of the action. … There the appellant failed to file a certificate of qualified expert within ninety days of the date of the filing of the claim.

Rivers v. Hagner Management Corp.

182 Md. App. 632 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2008

Clearly, the approval was implied, through those inspections. … Notably, there was no applicable statute that established a duty of care.

Wrobleski v. De Lara

121 Md. App. 181 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 1998

This examination was clearly prejudicial error which must have contributed to the large verdicts for the plaintiffs. … In any event, the trial court clearly did not err in failing to give the instruction.

Ochse v. Henry

216 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2014

Success on the breach of contract claim against the Henrys – indeed, success on any aspect of the post-mediation appeal – was purely academic in all respects but one: it meant that the Ochses would qualify as the "prevailing … An award of attorney's fees will not be disturbed unless the court "exercised [its] discretion arbitrarily or [its] judgment was clearly wrong." Danziger v. Danziger, 208 Md. 469, 475, 118 A.2d 653, 656 (1955).