Case law

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.

Landover Books, Inc. v. Prince George's County

81 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1989

or other visual representations which depict sadomasochistic abuse, sexual conduct or sexual excitement as defined by Article 27 Section 416A of the Annotated Code *59 of Maryland and does not otherwise qualify as a theatre … The language of the subject zoning ordinance clearly indicates that the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent an adverse impact upon neighboring properties and children. 7 Based upon the preceding discussion and its similarity

Myers v. Celotex Corp.

88 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1991

Evidence is material if it tends to establish a proposition that has legal significance to the litigation; it is relevant if it is sufficiently probative of a proposition that, if established, would have legal significance … Otherwise, you would never have to qualify his opinions with that phrase.

Vargas-Salguero v. State

237 Md. App. 317 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2018

The first half of the sentence stated a condition, and a colloquial preface or qualifier can render a statement ambiguous. But the statement’s ultimate clarity depends on its context. In Ballard v. … App. 13, 36–37 (1974) (suspect’s statement that “he didn’t want to talk anymore” qualified as an unambiguous invocation).

In the Matter of Broadway Services

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2025

The remand did not clearly precede or follow judicial review. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the remand was a final, appealable judgment. … Thomas Tartal, the Comptroller’s chief auditor, testified that, in his opinion, the intention to resell tangible personal property in and of itself does not establish a resale. Mr.

Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review

146 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2002

DISCUSSION Pollock asserts that the Board’s finding that the positive urine specimen was the same urine specimen collected from Pollock on May 15, 1997 was clearly erroneous because that fact “was never established with any … The prescribed guidelines, which did not have the effect of a properly promulgated and published rule or regulation, required at least four observations of the probationary teacher each year, by more than one qualified observer

White v. State

132 Md. App. 640 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2000

As appellant was shown by the evidence to be, at least, in joint exclusive possession of the vehicle -with Galliard, we cannot say that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in finding appellant guilty of these offenses. … Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 *645 (1978), and to qualify, therefore, for derivative standing with respect to the car.

Friends of Frederick County v. Town of New Market

224 Md. App. 185 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2015

To support these contentions, appellants submitted affidavits from three experienced and qualified experts: Joseph R. … On page 31 the MGE explains that the Town will establish a Conservation Committee. 5.

Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Const.

243 Md. App. 376 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2019

These services shall be performed in accordance with the schedule established by the Design-Builder pursuant to Article 5. … An intention inconsistent with enforcement of the right to arbitration should be clearly established and should not be inferred from equivocal acts or language. Charles J. Frank, Inc. v.

In re Jeffrey L.

50 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1981

As part of the study, the child or its parents may be examined mentally or physically by a professionally qualified person. … ” To which counsel replied, "I didn’t see the Boy’s Village report, so I don’t know how severe it is,” clearly indicating that neither the statute nor the rule had been complied with.

Reece v. State

220 Md. App. 309 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2014

Shukat had particularized quantities of trustworthiness was clearly erroneous. … Because there was evidence to support the factual findings, they were not clearly erroneous. See Kusi v.

Wise v. State

47 Md. App. 656 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1981

In summarizing the teaching of that case, however, Judge Davidson pointed out that Sealfon : "... established not only that inconsistent verdicts, when reached in successive trials, are not permissible, but also that once … Obviously in light of that determination, she could not qualify as a conspirator.

Berman v. State

35 Md. App. 193 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1977

Our review of the testimony of the complainants and the contents of the travel consultant agreement signed by them, clearly indicates that the representations of Greatway were not representations of a past or existing fact … This statement, standing alone, is an insufficient basis to establish that Greatway misrepresented its past or existing financial condition.

State v. Jones

138 Md. App. 178 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2001

[BENNETT]: I agree that you clearly objected to the statement coming in. … Carr — it’s qualified, it’s a qualified case, and it was a conspiracy case also.

Wood v. Valliant

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2017

Clearly construction had begun and diligently been carried on prior to September 2nd, 2003,” the date on which the Town adopted this amendment to Chapter 340. … Subsection (b)(4) establishes that the time limit for a governmental entity to initiate an action or proceeding begins on “the date on which the final building inspection was approved.” 4 4 CJP § 5-

Bynes v. State

237 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2018

It will be noted that, as of this point, the appellant has not exerted any force or physically done anything that could qualify as a self-defensive action or maneuver. … We will not reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial unless the defendant was so clearly prejudiced that the denial constituted an abuse of discretion.

Wood v. Valliant

231 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2017

Clearly construction had begun and diligently been carried on prior to September 2nd, 2003,” the date on which the Town adopted this amendment to Chapter 340. … Subsection (b)(4) establishes that the time limit for a governmental entity 12  -Unreported Opinion- to initiate an action or proceeding

Ogburn v. State

71 Md. App. 496 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1987

Since “the fact of prior misconduct” must be established as a prerequisite to obtaining a probation before judgment disposition, the proffer that a witness has received that disposition for a theft offense necessarily establishes … The suggested misconduct there, therefore, was so clearly related to the witness’ credibility concerning the charge on trial and an attack on her credibility was so critical to the accused’s defense that to exclude evidence

Frazier v. State

197 Md. App. 264 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2011

The Wright Court, however, qualified its holding by stating: We are not suggesting that asking questions to a venire panel en masse is an inherently flawed procedure. … As is well established, our discretion to recognize plain error is plenary. See McMillan v.

Ward Europa, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury

66 Md. App. 332 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1986

For the tax years at issue, each appellant was qualified as a domestic international sales corporation, commonly referred to as a DISC. … This was clearly not the intent of the legislature. Appellants’ interpretation of § 316 is inconsistent with common sense, and we reject it.