Case law

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.

Service Transport, Inc. v. Hurricane Express, Inc.

185 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2009

records pertaining to the establishment and funding of the business. … Clearly, appellant did not ask the circuit court to determine whether its own case should possibly be dismissed for absence of an indispensable party under Rule 2-211(c). 12 Rather, it argued that under Rule 2-211(a), KSI

In Re Joshua W.

94 Md. App. 486 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1993

The trial court was not clearly erroneous in making this finding. Much of Mr. … [to] establish guidelines for child support award amounts within *499 the State.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 667 (a).

Estate of Brown v. Ward

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2024

Through its appointed Substitute Trustees, may a stranger to a non- assigned Maryland judgment subsequently utilize a purported contractual right for a summary action which was not clearly preserved in the loan … These statutes “provide[] consumer protection to borrowers[,]” “establish[] parameters and requirements with which credit grantors must comply[,]” and “establish[] various remedies to a borrower if the credit grantor fails

Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations

42 Md. App. 53 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1979

“The legislative history of exemption 7 clearly supports such an interpretation. … Having determined that the requested information comes within the investigatory files exception, we must now determine whether this *77 information should be accorded immunity from disclosure.

Jones v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2014

clearly identif[ies] the prior conduct of the witness that tends to show he is unworthy of belief,’” Thurman v. State, 211 Md. … But the overlap is not complete, because an overt act can qualify as an attempt and yet not rise to the level of an assault.” Id. at 129.

Harvey v. Marshall

158 Md. App. 355 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2004

But Harvey’s complaint does not qualify for that kind of relief because it is about a failure or refusal to take administrative action. … of competing against a privatized jurisdiction as established in § 10-119.1[.]”

Volcjak v. Washington County Hospital Ass'n

124 Md. App. 481 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1999

“to establish principles of governance and accountability to assure the public of quality care by the Medical Staff.” … Clearly, they had not selected who would be the exclusive provider nor negotiated the contract for exclusive services.

Fair v. State

198 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2011

In its analysis, the Holland Court explored the definition of “assertion,” id. at 543-44 , 713 A.2d 364 : To qualify as hearsay, the words recounted in court must, for starters, constitute an assertion or statement of a fact … For an out-of-court utterance to qualify as an assertion, it generally must be in the indicative or declarative mood, rather than in the interrogative mood, the imperative mood, or the subjunctive mood.

Harrison v. State

151 Md. App. 648 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2003

We accept the facts as found by the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous. Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183 , 571 A.2d 1239 (1990). … ]degree murder of James Cook based on concurrent intent, would vitiate the well-established principle that the transferred intent doctrine does not apply to attempted murder. See e.g. Poe v.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Hickey

114 Md. App. 388 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1997

The decision of the Court of Appeals of New York clearly demonstrates that New York does not tax out-of-state income. New York only taxes income allocable to New York. … To hold as appellees suggest would permit them to pay less tax in Maryland in reliance on New York’s artifice of first establishing the tax rate based on all income, in order to establish a higher rate, thus enabling New

Parham v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Registration

189 Md. App. 604 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2009

. § 8-512(d) establishes the scope of review of a final decision of a Board of Appeals. … We see no reason to remand for Mid Atlantic to justify a termination that it has clearly said never took place.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources v. Hirsch

42 Md. App. 457 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 1979

From these figures and from tidal bench marks in Cornfield Cree[k], Hubbard was able to identify the tidal range for the creek, clearly establishing the site as a tidal area. … Many statutes either establish or provide for the establishment of restrictions on the use of land — zoning and planning ordinances and health and environmental control laws being prime examples.

Sweeney v. Montgomery County

107 Md. App. 187 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 1995

630 A.2d 753 (an appellate court cannot review an agency’s decision under the “substantial evidence” or “arbitrary and capricious” standards unless the agency’s opinion makes findings of fact on all material issues and clearly … Or a position of comparable status, if qualified.

Zitterbart v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.

182 Md. App. 495 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 2008

Any such evidence would have to be established by expert testimony. See Laing v. … Clearly, they are not. We shall address the various arguments put forth by the Zitterbarts in the context of the statutory subsections to which they apply, in reverse order.

Howard v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2024

According to Appellant, the evidence presented established that Mr. … It would be illogical and contrary to firmly established principles of criminal law to require Appellant to establish that the firearm—of which he claims he has no knowledge—was a Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle.

Department of Natural Resources v. Adams

37 Md. App. 165 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1977

To allow the Secretary, in his discretion, to place a blind in another body of water clearly infringes upon the riparian owners of that body of water. … It appears also that the claimed qualifying shoreline is now owned by Henry Thomas, who leases the hunting rights to Merryweather. 2 .

Commercial Union Insurance v. Porter Hayden Co.

116 Md. App. 605 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1997

Wilson, 99 Md.App. 305 , 637 A.2d 486 (1994), suggests a limitation on the broad discretion of a trial judge to deny summary judgment to a party who has seemed to qualify for such judgment in his favor. … We held the conclusion of the trial court to the contrary to have been clearly erroneous.

Howard v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2024

According to Appellant, the evidence presented established that Mr. … It would be illogical and contrary to firmly established principles of criminal law to require Appellant to establish that the firearm—of which he claims he has no knowledge—was a Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle.

James v. State

14 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 21, 1972

At common law, according to the established prece *700 dents, when, during a trial, a defect in jurors occurred because of the death, illness, or misconduct of a juror or other cause necessitating his discharge, the practice … Further, the substituted juror had been fully examined by both sides on voir dire and accepted as a qualified alternate. There was no claim that he was unable to render a fair verdict. .