Case law

Geier v. Maryland State Board of Physicians

223 Md. App. 404 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2015

Grossman was not a “true peer” and should not have been qualified as an expert, the Board found as follows: Dr. … Grossman properly was qualified as an expert. Dr.

McCracken v. State

150 Md. App. 330 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2003

If you qualify for the public defender’s office they will represent you and who was assigned to your case is no choice of yours. … Applying the standard of review to the present case, appellant argues that the evidence failed to establish that the weapon (1) qualified as a dangerous or deadly weapon, or (2) was concealed.

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.

Garlock, Inc. v. Gallagher

149 Md. App. 189 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 2003

Along with setting out Gallagher’s exposure history, plaintiffs sought to establish the dangerousness of the asbestos *198 products. … Churg was qualified to speak to the medical question of tumor growth, not the loaded issue of which asbestos company was responsible for what harm.

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.

O'Brien v. Board of License Commissioners

199 Md. App. 563 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 2011

This clearly did not occur here. … him qualified.

Walser v. Resthaven Memorial Gardens, Inc.

98 Md. App. 371 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1993

In most states where the question has arisen a survivor who qualifies as a proper party plaintiff can maintain his action at law to recover damages for an accomplished wrongful exhumation and removal (and for a wrongful exhumation … Appellants rely on the “unless” clause as establishing a duty on the part of anyone seeking to disinter a body to obtain authorization from the State’s Attorney. That duty, they suggest, runs to their benefit.

Griffin v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 2024

The record clearly establishes, with no basis for a contrary inference, that the charges were nol prossed because of a legitimate belief that the charging documents were defective and because the defendant … One must qualify for such an analysis. For that qualifying function, the court typically looks to the “length of delay” in its procedural manifestation. As Barker v.

Campbell v. State

240 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2019

We recognized that “[t]his amount of time is not extensive, but it clearly is not inconsequential, and it falls within the time frame in which courts have reached conflicting results.” Id. … When, during voir dire, the State moved to exclude appellant’s family from the courtroom, defense counsel observed that “there’s clearly space at this point in the courtroom[.]”

Johnson v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 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.

Lee v. State

139 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2001

This Court will accept the facts as determined by the hearing judge, unless those facts are clearly erroneous. Id. … such an exception as was created in Michigan, by attaching the doctrine of inevitable discovery to violations of the well established knock-and-announce requirement.

Baker, Watts & Co. v. Miles & Stockbridge

95 Md. App. 145 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1993

Baker, Watts is unable to refer this Court to any law that clearly states that a party may seek contribution based on a contract theory that parallels its claim. … We note that this motion qualifies as one filed within ten days of final judgment.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

209 Md. App. 524 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 2013

We note that TG § 10 402(d) and COMAR 03.03.03.08F(1) authorize alternative apportionment when statutory formulas do not "reflect *544 clearly the income allocable to Maryland.” … For the reasons given in our discussion, this would not "reflect clearly the income allocable to Maryland,” and as such, the Comptroller was not bound to the statutory apportionment.

Harley v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2025

Instead, the court accepted as true Harley’s factual representations and the State’s qualified concessions about the illegality of the detention. … “[W]e defer to the hearing court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous[,]” Thornton v. State, 465 Md. at 139.

White v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc.

221 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2015

Some houses will qualify straightaway based on condition. … Thus, the term, at least now, has a clearly accepted meaning that a property need not be lead free but may contain lead dust within certain thresholds.

Lawson v. State

160 Md. App. 602 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 2005

Although in question form, the state’s comments were clearly asserting that appellant had failed to present evidence to rebut the state’s claim. … This case presents no persuasive reasons why it should be an exception to this well established rule.

Robinson v. State

53 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1982

Clearly, that photograph was the unattenuated offspring of an illicit intercourse between Crews and the police. … Rather, it said, "the more apt question in such a case is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or

Ward v. State

221 Md. App. 146 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2015

State, the State also asserts that new scientific analyses do not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … Clearly, such new scientific evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence.”). Cf.

Allied Building Products Corp. v. United Pacific Insurance

77 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1988

The Act is intended to protect suppliers on State and other public projects where they would ótherwise have no lien as a result of sovereign immunity. Hamilton & Spiegel, Inc. v. … “Will require” clearly indicates future action, and by drafting this provision Triangle clearly contemplated obtaining separate signed releases for each payment at some future date.