Case law

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). .

100 Harborview Drive Condominium Council of Unit Owners v. Clark

224 Md. App. 13 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2015

On its face, RP § 11-116 clearly establishes that the phrase “books and records” necessarily includes documents maintained “in accordance with good accounting practices . . . including insurance policies”; “financial statements … Nor does RP § 11-116 so clearly dominate the subject-matter to warrant implied abrogation of the common law.

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.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Mayor of Baltimore City

108 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1996

The City did not establish what became of these boxes after shipment, nor did the City establish whether Owens-Corning employees actually read the contents. … Baltimore, supra, 336 Md. at 188-89 , 647 A.2d 405 , in the following context: The City argues that it has “clearly and convincingly ... met the requirements for punitive damages set forth in Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia.”

In re: Adoption of Quintline B.& Shellariece B.

219 Md. App. 187 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2014

Clearly, in hindsight, Father had and continues to have many more issues than lack of housing. He is unable to take care of himself. … the child, the child tested positive for a drug as evidenced by a positive toxicology test; and 2. the mother refused the level of drug treatment recommended by a qualified

O'Brien v. Bank of America, N.A.

214 Md. App. 51 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2013

Proc. § ll-603(c) required Bank of America to hold the garnished funds, and because it complied, its actions were clearly chargeable to the state and constituted state action. … Gorn, 193 Md. 391, 396-97 , 67 A.2d 258 (1949) (stating, “[tjhere can be no doubt that in Maryland, a conveyance to husband and wife, without restrictive or qualifying words, creates a tenancy by the entirely]”) (additional

Bennett v. Zelinsky

163 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2005

On the contrary, if the front lot line is established as determined here, the yards can easily be established. … This clearly is contrary to the purpose of the Code. (Emphasis added.) In Harford County People’s Counsel v.

Maryland State Board of Physicians v. Eist

176 Md. App. 82 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2007

He also provides no information from which the Board could infer that he himself was qualified to give a medical assessment of any of the patients’ behaviors. … Clearly, the Board’s interest in assuring that Dr.

Lan Buck v. State

181 Md. App. 585 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2008

Our task on review is only “ ‘to judge the voluntariness of the confession based upon the clearly established facts and in accordance with proper constitutional standards.’ ” Lodowski v. … This finding clearly was not clearly erroneous or legally incorrect. III.

Lovell Land, Inc. v. State Highway Administration

180 Md. App. 725 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2008

Ergo, appellant argues that the express language of the Reverter Clause, interpreted in light of § 8-309, establishes that King’s Meade and its successors are third party beneficiaries. … It must clearly appear that the parties intend to *750 recognize him as the primary party in interest and as privy to the promise. (Internal citations omitted).

Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban v. Mayor of Baltimore

91 Md. App. 251 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 1992

Statutory Framework and Conclusions of the Circuit Court The General Assembly has stated rather clearly its purpose in enacting the Freedom of Information Act. … The department takes the position that the only people who qualify as “persons in interest” under that subsection are the police officers or employees against whom a complaint was made and who are or were the subject of the

Asmussen v. CSX Transportation

247 Md. App. 529 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2020

Regna’s deposition testimony “revealed that his background, education, training, and experience did not qualify him to opine as to the causation of [Asmussen’s] kidney cancer,” and “the studies cited by Dr. … While the parties in this case clearly failed to depose Dr. Runz by the scheduling order’s deadline for the completion of all discovery, and while it also appears that Transportation, Inc. v.

Esslinger v. Baltimore City

95 Md. App. 607 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1993

(ii) It is now clearly established that a plaintiff suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — either in state or federal court— need not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bring *615 ing his § 1983 action. See Felder v. … Even if, on remand, a court should conclude that the Satellite Dish Ordinance is unconstitutional, the defendants may enjoy immunity from liability for the damages claimed. See Harlow v.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Bullock

68 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1986

WMATA eventually obtained from the District of Columbia a Self-Insurer Certificate simply attesting that WMATA “has qualified as a Self-Insurer for the payment of benefits for personal injury protection benefits, bodily injury … It rests on the “rule of law existing in this State that ‘[ijnsurance coverage cannot be established by waiver.’ ” St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. v.

National Corp. for Housing Partnership, Meadowood Townhouse Inc. v. Keller

119 Md. App. 566 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1998

Neither party refers us to any Maryland case that clearly establishes when dependency is to be determined in the event that a worker dies before receipt of all permanent partial disability benefits. … Nevertheless, appellants urge us to establish dependency as of the time of the worker’s injury, while appellee argues that it should be established as of the worker’s death.

Howard County v. Carroll

71 Md. App. 635 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1987

. & 1986 Supp.) empowers the Department of Natural Resources to delegate to qualifying counties and municipalities the authority to enforce compliance with the provisions of the State’s Sediment Control Law, sections 8-1101 … Law Appellee is incorrect in his presumption that the “clearly erroneous” standard of Rule 1086 applies to the instant case.

Blackwell v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

220 Md. App. 113 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2014

The party who attacks a release under federal law bears the burden of establishing the invalidity of the purported release. Callen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 332 U.S. 625, 630, 68 S.Ct. 296, 298 (1948). … Wicker, supra, 142 F.3d at 700-01. 18 immunity on an employer as opposed to addressing a specific instance of disputed liability. Babbitt, supra, 104 F.3d at 93.

Connolley v. Harrison

23 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 20, 1974

Rule 535, nevertheless appellant failed to establish that the Harrisons did not in good faith attempt to get a satisfactory release of the mortgage from Royer. … It can scarcely be said that such a situation would qualify as a “satisfactory release” for the Harrisons.

Moore v. State

195 Md. App. 695 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2010

Detective Toland was qualified and accepted by the court as an expert in the detection, sale, and packaging of narcotics. … This may be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc.

198 Md. App. 87 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2011

This, appellee contends, was clearly not the General Assembly’s intent to reach so many businesses whose primary function is to sell a good or service. … Appellants further rely on the Harper Court’s conclusion that, “based upon the broad language of the [West Virginia] statute ... plaintiffs likewise qualify as ‘buyers’ under [the *109 West Virginia statute] because they