Case law

Jacobs v. Adams

66 Md. App. 779 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1986

It is only after the rights of parties have been established by the laws of the situs that the forum may determine how those rights shall be exercised. … It did not restrict, limit, define, qualify, or otherwise simply modify the cause of action but declared it to be wholly unavailable.

Parkway Neuroscience v. Katz, Abosch, etc., PA

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2022

In order to establish lost profits damages, PNSI proffered the expert testimony of Meghan Cardell, a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”). Appellees moved to exclude Ms. … Cardell testified that she had researched the accounting literature and determined that there was no established rule on this issue.

Cox v. State

194 Md. App. 629 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 2010

Id. at 825 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 (statements made “unwittingly” to a government informant are “clearly nontestimonial”). Rather, Mr. … West in central booking did not qualify as the fruit of an illegal arrest. It argues that appellant’s statements to Mr.

Burns v. State

149 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2003

That would, ipso facto, qualify for what the plurality opinion of this Court in Smith v. State, 145 Md.App. 400, 421-25 , 805 A.2d 1108 (2002), referred to as “the greater nexus.” … That is clearly enough of a mens rea to satisfy the watered-down animus furandi of theft.

Zadnik v. Ambinder

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 23, 2023

“Words in praesenti sufficient to establish a definite agreement to marry usually are required to establish a common law marriage.” Giant Eagle v. Workers’ Comp. … Zadnik clearly stated in both his affidavit and his answers to interrogatories that Ms.

Stein v. Pfizer Inc.

228 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2016

The Baltimore City circuit court resolved this issue, by granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, after determining that it did not qualify as an “apparent manufacturer.” … Then, observing that the “aim of the [‘apparent manufacturer’] doctrine clearly was to provide a remedy for consumers injured by unsafe products,” an “objective [now] achieved by the doctrine of strict products liability,

Wilson v. Maryland Department of the Environment

217 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

We note, however, that the default order, which he clearly received and was seeking to vacate, stated that he had been found to have violated the lead paint laws. … -8-  The Complaint is clearly written and sets forth the time periods to file a request for a hearing. [Mr.

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).

Murphy v. State

105 Md. App. 303 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1995

The transcribed statement was admitted into evidence in its entirety and Detective Horne was permitted to testify that he was qualified to administer polygraph tests, that he advised appellant of his rights prior to the test … The State clearly went beyond what was necessary in order to establish that the confession given by appellant after the test was voluntary.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. 6Z970003

127 Md. App. 33 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1999

On November 21, 1994, Justus’s mother died of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrom (AIDS). … It did so in accordance with the established practice of the juvenile court in Montgomery County in guardianship cases.

Roes v. State

236 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2018

A vessel, it’s clearly not adrift. The testimony is that this is tied to the dock. … And, “I want you to really think about how those pictures qualifies as abandoned vessels that are being disposed of as litter in the water, in Caroline County.”

Stevenson v. Edgefield Holdings

244 Md. App. 604 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2020

The rule permits us to set aside a trial court’s factual determinations if they are clearly erroneous. … First, we note that the word “judgment” is defined in Maryland Rule 1-202(o), which states that “an order of court” does not qualify as a “judgment” unless it is “entered pursuant to these rules.”

Ryan v. Brady

34 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1976

According to Berry, the two stakes were clearly visible from the Ryan home. … The record plat clearly showed that this was erroneous. Mr.

Mears v. Town of Oxford

52 Md. App. 407 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1982

The language of Ordinance 165 clearly indicates that its purpose is to protect a natural resource, and it is unnecessary to look beyond the wording of an ordinance "when the wording itself clearly establishes legislative … Furthermore the state’s comprehensive program has qualified it for participation in the Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (b), pursuant to which the United States Environmental Protection Agency

Shives v. Furst

70 Md. App. 328 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1987

Once the court has decided that the deposition meets these procedural requirements, the court then must address the ancillary evidentiary issues such as whether the contents of the box qualifies as admissible evidence. … Moreover, this precise fact was established by Dr. Furst’s own testimony during direct examination: Did you ask Mrs.

Gallaher v. Trustees of the Cherry Hill Methodist Episcopal Church of Cherry Hill, Inc.

42 Md. App. 186 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1979

Furthermore, it would establish, by judicial fiat, a rule which is unsupported in principle or authority. At the outset, we note that the purchaser of a cemetery lot does not acquire a fee simple interest. … We cannot say that the decree entered by Judge Everngam was “clearly erroneous,” or, indeed, that it was erroneous at all. Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by appellees. 1 .

John B. Parsons Home, LLC v. John B. Parsons Foundation

217 Md. App. 39 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2014

Baker established a trust (“the Baker Trust”). … The qualifying words “as hereinafter set forth,” therefore, limit the conveyance to the property listed in the articles of sale.

Carroll County Ethics Commission v. Lennon

119 Md. App. 49 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1998

Fisher has been qualified as an expert witness on legal matters” before various courts in Maryland (emphasis ours), there is no indication that he testified as an expert in this case. … Finding no other support for Lennon’s position, we view the trial court’s finding as clearly erroneous, and conclude that Lennon was, in fact, employed by the Battaglias on March 21,1995. B.

In Re Danielle B. & Deon A.

78 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 1989

When the question is one of law, clearly the Judge may decide whether that Master has erred. Not so clear is the case as here. This bald assertion is clearly in error. … The parens patriae jurisdiction of circuit courts in this State is well established.

Purnell v. Beard & Bone, LLC

203 Md. App. 495 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2012

Susan Pusey, qualified as an expert in title abstracting, testified that she prepared chains of title for the Beard & Bone, Cantwell, and Purnell properties. … The Purnell[s] produced no evidence that any predecessor in title to [Beard & Bone’s] parcel had ever taken any action to clearly indicate any intent to abandon any easement.