Case law

Thomas v. Capital Medical Management Associates, LLC

189 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2009

In this regard, damages can be ascertained “by reference to some fairly definite standard, such as market value, established experience, or direct inference from known circumstances.” Id. … And, our review of the record shows that the judgment in this case qualifies as a final, appealable judgment because: 1) it was docketed on April 14, 2008 as a "final disposition;” 2) in its oral ruling, the court addressed

Williams v. State

89 Md. App. 685 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1991

The language under consideration was clearly chosen to distinguish minor enterprise ‘employees’ from those who conceive and coordinate enterprise activities. … The Bowers court qualified its comments by stating that mathematical certainty is not required, and that the legislature need not describe the prohibited conduct in elaborate detail. Id. at 129, 389 A.2d 341 .

Prahinski v. Prahinski

75 Md. App. 113 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1988

. *126 A law practice, like a title company, is a service business; and whatever classification he assigned to it, appellee’s expert was valuing a service business, a subject on which he did qualify as an expert. … The fact that such a non-competition clause was an essential factor in the expert’s valuation sub judice clearly establishes that what the expert referred to as “goodwill” was in reality the appellant’s reputation.

Bordley v. State

205 Md. App. 692 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2012

That was done for the safety of the entire establishment. This is a hotel after all. … I find that there’s clearly authority for what Ms. Bordley did. She’s ... in charge and she gave them the ability to go in.

McCance v. Lindau

63 Md. App. 504 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1985

Nevertheless, § 525, directed at limitations of actions, contains no qualifying language. … A plaintiff may maintain an action for damages for a negligent act which causes nervous shock resulting in clearly apparent and substantial physical manifestations. Vance v.

From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. Philadelphia-Baltimore Annual Conference

184 Md. App. 11 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2009

The Court clearly stated that “[o]nce established, a trust may be modified without the beneficiaries’ consent, but *47 only if the power to do so is reserved.” Id. (emphasis added). … “The intention to waive must be clearly established and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 109 , 468 A.2d 91 .

Graves v. State

215 Md. App. 339 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2013

to establish entitlement to such testing.” … Appellant’s challenge, that his guilty plea was involuntary, clearly is an issue that may be raised in a coram nobis petition.

McNaughton v. McNaughton

74 Md. App. 490 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1988

As the evidence clearly established that any increase in the value of that company during the marriage of the Wilens was directly traceable to the property which had been acquired before the marriage, we affirmed the chancellor … McNaughton was clearly inequitable.

Pitts v. State

250 Md. App. 496 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 2021

It would have to be established not only on the basis of Price itself but on the significantly fuller exposition of Givens v. State, 449 Md. 433, 144 A.3d, 712 (2016). … The appellant fails to persuade us how such a lackluster alleged error, even if error it be, would ever qualify as a “blockbuster” error.

New Board of School Commissioners v. Public School Administrators & Supervisors Ass'n

142 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 2, 2002

In an effort to establish the validity of the contract provision, the Association points to Code (1978, 1999 Repl. Yol., 2001 Cum. … We have carefully reviewed the State Board’s decision, and we detect no indication that the State Board applied an incorrect standard of review.- Clearly, the State Board followed its own, well-established precedent.

Heard v. Prince George's Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2024

established standing under either theory. … Thus, Heard has demonstrated that he lives close enough to the contested site to qualify for special aggrievement based on proximity.

Sczudlo v. Berry

129 Md. App. 529 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1999

The vacations that the court cited, however, were hardly luxurious and the evidence established that appellant did not fully pay for all of them. … We simply find no basis in the record for the court’s conclusion; therefore, we hold that its finding is clearly erroneous.

Powell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

86 Md. App. 98 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1991

Section 541(c)(2) provides in pertinent part: In no case shall the uninsured motorist coverage be less than the coverage afforded a qualified person under Article 48A, §§ 243H and 243-1. … Neither can he qualify under ...

Podles v. Consumer Protection Div.

253 Md. App. 262 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2021

The Division argues that it had the authority to issue the investigatory subpoena and that Podles was not immune from the Division’s subpoena power simply because he was a real estate salesperson. … ‘“If the language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, our inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without resort to other

Miller v. State

185 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 2009

THE COURT: I find the defendant is qualified. … We will accept the findings of fact of the trial court, unless they are clearly erroneous. Harris, 303 Md. at 698 , 496 A.2d 1074 .

Wiegmann v. State

118 Md. App. 317 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1997

In any event, waiting in a cell for the day would hardly seem to qualify as a "brief” or “reasonable” detention. See Terry v. … immunity), cert. denied, 336 Md. 280 , 648 A.2d 192 (1994). .

Isley v. State

129 Md. App. 611 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2000

The pedigree of subsection 770a is easy to establish. … Judge Digges then austerely limited the exceptional circumstances that might qualify as “extraordinary or compelling” and they clearly did not apply to any actual exercise of discretion: The only exceptions to this statement

Nisos v. Nisos

60 Md. App. 368 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1984

self-supporting; (3) The time deemed necessary by the court for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable the party to find suitable employment; *388 (4) The standard of living of the parties established … Therefore, it would not qualify under the admission exception to the hearsay rule. See, McCormick, Evidence, § 262, (3d ed. 1984).

First Baptist Church of Friendly v. Beeson

154 Md. App. 650 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2004

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment do not immunize religious corporations or their patrons from generally applicable taxation. See Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. … Pickering compare Pastor Kingsley’s compensation with that of similarly qualified pastors in the District of Columbia area, objection was sustained. Similarly, when Mr.

Newton v. Spence

20 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1974

The jury’s answer to issues concerning the Fifth Count establish that it found Sears’ principal prosecutor, Mr. DiNicolo, to have acted on probable cause. … . 87 , it was held that an instruction allowing punitive damages without finding existence of actual malice was erroneous, because there were facts in that case to be passed on by the jury which raised the question of a qualified