Case law

W. Mont. Cy. Citizens Ass'n v. Planning Bd.

248 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2020

Looking at the covenant specifically, the Applicant argues that the 125-foot stream buffer on the 25 Preliminary Plan “clearly complies” with the requirement in the Piney Branch … At the hearing, the Planning Board heard extensive testimony from WMCCA’s witness (who was not qualified as an expert).

Yonce v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

111 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1996

Failure to adminis *150 ter the drug increases the risk of the mother’s immune system’s response to a later RH-positive fetus. Donald, who was RH-positive, was born on December 19, 1983 and died four days later. … The Court recited a tripartite test for determining whether an act qualifies as a supervening cause.

Bridgett v. Montgomery County

186 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

In each instance it is for the board on the basis of the evidence before it to determine if the necessary causal relationship has been established. (Emphasis added.). … The Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute, established by Md.Code (1978, 2008 Repl. Vol.) Education Article § 13-103, offers training programs for swiftwater rescue technicians.

Public Service Commission v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

60 Md. App. 495 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1984

. & E. did not (1) have adequate instrumentation on line during the unit’s start up; (2) have a sufficient number of qualified chemistry technicians present; and (3) adequately train chemistry and operating personnel on the … Clearly, the Commission intended to investigate individual outages as part of its review of the fuel rate adjustments.

GPL Enterprise v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 24, 2022

Ky. 2021) (concluding that “a purely economic loss cannot qualify as a ‘direct physical loss’”). … Furthermore, GPL’s theory sidesteps the basic requirements for establishing coverage.

Boyer v. State

107 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 1995

According to the appellant, “it [was] unclear who qualifie[d] as an ‘organizer, supervisor, financier, or manager’ in a drug conspiracy.” Id. … Boyer’s privilege not to testify was tied clearly to its instruction to Mrs. Boyer that she did not have to answer questions that exceeded the scope of direct examination.

Roebuck v. Steuart

76 Md. App. 298 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 1988

The rule would seem to penalize a lawyer for his negligence when it costs his client a modest judgment but grant him immunity when his negligence results in a judgment too large for the client to pay. … Clearly this evidence is inadequate to show “some clearly apparent and substantial physical injury, as manifested by an external condition or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological, physiological, or mental

McClurkin & Jackson v. State

222 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2015

But, for there to be what has become known as a “Bruton violation,” the statement at issue must qualify as “testimonial” hearsay, State v. … The statements made by each of the appellants, during their respective jailhouse telephone calls, were also clearly “more akin to casual remarks to an acquaintance than formal declarations to an official.”

Shingleton v. State

39 Md. App. 527 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1978

Normal investigative procedure would include, for example, standard visual or aural surveillance techniques by law enforcement officers, general questioning or interrogation under an immunity grant, use of regular search … We think the affidavit clearly established the reasons why it was necessary to use the wiretap.

Davis v. Director, Patuxent Institution

29 Md. App. 705 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1976

Qualified as an expert witness in the field of psychiatry, he said he was familiar with the Maryland statutory criteria for defective delinquency. It was his opinion that Davis was not a defective delinquent. … The staff report meets hearsay exceptions by past judicial fiat, well established.

Podles v. Consumer Protection Div.

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

Mitchell v. AARP Life Insurance Program

140 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2001

STANDARD OF REVIEW Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment. … The applicants were all younger than twenty and would not have qualified even if Southland had lowered the general minimum of twenty-five to twenty before they made application.

Waddell v. State

85 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 1990

. *58 Other testimony established appellant’s behavior after the shooting, i.e., he told the Precision Concrete supervisor that he wanted to get his paycheck “to get out of town” and that he had a passport. … The trial court properly excluded the testimony because it did not qualify under one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Id. at 9 , 536 A.2d 666 . B.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Alderson

26 Md. App. 277 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1975

This generalization is later qualified with the proviso that the out-of-court statement by the party-opponent must exhibit “the quality of inconsistency with the facts now asserted by him in pleadings or in [his] testimony … In affirming the action of the trial court denying the cab company’s motion for judgment n.o.v., the Court stated, at 90-91: “That there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident is clearly established.

Jones v. State

37 Md. App. 511 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 14, 1977

Such an inference would, of course, be clearly un *518 constitutional under Mullaney v. Wilbur and Winship. … The importance of the qualifying language in this statement of law could easily be missed by a jury. The statement is a guide to the bench and bar, but instructions should be tailored to the evidence in the case.

Johnson v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2022

We accept the suppression court’s factual findings unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. … Judge Asti agreed that at that point, probable cause had been established.

Thomas v. Ramsburg

99 Md. App. 395 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1994

Under this mechanism, the court clerk monitors the docket and notifies the parties when a case reaches the age which, under subsection (c), would qualify it for dismissal. … The rule does not establish a procedure for the benefit of a civil defendant.

Wilson v. State

150 Md. App. 658 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 2003

Here, two minutes *672 was clearly a “reasonable time” to wait for the arrival of the canine unit. … To conclude otherwise would qualify all Terry pat-downs as arrests. Therefore, the search of appellant was pre-arrest, *673 without a warrant, and without any applicable exception to the warrant requirement.

McClellan v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

166 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 19, 2005

Clearly the positive gunshot residue test results revealed that Officer McClellan was less than truthful about the incident. … Harant was qualified as an expert in trace analysis and gunshot residue testing.

Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corp.

162 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 2005

State, to Use of Abbott, 75 Md. 152 , 23 A. 310 (1892); under family immunity *190 doctrines, see Smith v. … If the one, it is established by direct evidence, if the other by the proof of circumstances from which it is inferable as a fact. Constructive notice is, on the other hand always a presumption of law.