Case law

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.

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-

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.

Wilkinson v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, St. Mary's Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2022

[A]ny act of a landowner clearly manifesting such an intention is sufficient.”). … The Aikens do not present any argument addressing governmental immunity on appeal.

Alston v. State

159 Md. App. 253 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2004

In Olson , the defendant’s status at the time of the search as an overnight guest of the duplex renters was established factually; the decisional issue was the legal significance of that status for purposes of Fourth Amendment … narrowly, in favor of criminal defendants, holding that the unit of prosecution “is the prohibited act of illegal possession of a firearm and that the statute does not support multiple convictions based on several prior qualifying

Uthus v. Valley Mill Camp

243 Md. App. 539 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2019

Uthus to vacate the property, which he hasn’t, which clearly shows that his presence on the property is without the consent of [Valley Mill]. … We next turn our attention to whether the undisputed evidence established the elements of trespass.

Gruber v. Gruber

141 Md. App. 23 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2001

The circuit court’s finding that Katarina began living in Maryland upon her arrival was not clearly erroneous. … Gruber was aware of the six-month residency requirement for establishing home state jurisdiction.

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

Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

62 Md. App. 101 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1985

To qualify as an expert, a witness must have such skill, knowledge or experience in the field in question that his opinion will aid the trier of fact. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers’ Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. … The photograph depicting the cross-cut clearly shows the guide fence in place. The instructions state: "CROSS CUT Read Fig. A.

Lowenthal v. Rome

57 Md. App. 728 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1984

As the trial judge pointed out, “the answer of the personal representative clearly placed both wills at issue in the judicial probate proceedings.” … There was no testimony presented to establish whether any of the attesting witnesses understood or spoke English, the native language of the decedent.

Kleban v. Eghrari-Sabet

174 Md. App. 60 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 2007

It is well established in Maryland that damages based on speculation or conjecture are not recoverable as compensatory damages. See Wlodarek v. … She did not employ the formula established in the Agreement and she lacked knowledge regarding sources of appellees’ income.

Smith v. State

218 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2014

Probative value relates to the strength of the connection between the evidence and the issue, to the tendency of the evidence “‘to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.’” … The Court of Appeals held that the testimony of the prior BB gun shooting was “clearly relevant” to show the defendant’s recklessness in later pointing a gun at the child. Id.

Swann v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

95 Md. App. 365 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1993

The record clearly indicates, however, that the proposed instruction only made reference to Dover. It did not mention Prudential or CW. … Seven months later, however, Chief Judge Bruñe qualified the Court’s holding in Smith. [I]t seems desirable to point out a limitation upon the scope of [the Smith ] opinion.

Green v. Copperstone Ltd. Partnership

28 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1975

To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … ‘This legislative establishment of policy carries significance beyond the particular scope of each of the statutes involved.

Fitzgerald v. R & R TRUCKING, INC.

154 Md. App. 86 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

There is “no particular formula for establishing ‘regular’ employment,” and we must evaluate each set of circumstances on a case-by-case basis. … The Court cited similar reasons, explaining that the driver’s regular presence and work in Maryland on the weekends, which included storing, safekeeping, and maintaining the employer’s tractor-trailer, qualified as regular

Hyman v. State

158 Md. App. 618 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2004

The trial court did not err in determining that the November 23, 2002 incident was admissible to establish appellant’s intent on December 24, 2002. … In this case, the court clearly found that there was “very strong evidence, certainly by clear and convincing evidence,” that the November 23, 2002 incident occurred. Ms.

Teferi v. Dupont Plaza Associates

77 Md. App. 566 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1989

Weaver was qualified as an expert witness and testified in detail as to the nature and extent of his analysis and as to his conclusions regarding the misappropriation of the hotel’s funds by Teferi. … Clearly, at the point the court was asked to dissolve the ex parte order, the issue was moot. JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 1 .

Kennelly v. Burgess

99 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1994

James Stankiewicz, a physician engaged by appellants to opine as to Kennelly’s treatment, was qualified by the court as an expert in otolaryngology. Dr. … This reasoning is clearly circular, and therefore, incorrect.

Henry v. State

204 Md. App. 509 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 2012

Recently, the Court of Appeals restated the well-established rule for harmless error analysis: [W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record … In so doing, we defer to the circuit court’s first level findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.

Commercial Union Insurance v. Porter Hayden Co.

97 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1993

In our view, the evidence established that the last act necessary to give the policy binding effect occurred in New York. … By no means does it connote an ironbound requirement that notice be “immediate” or even “prompt”, relative as even those concepts often are; “soon”, a term close to each of these in common parlance, is expressly qualified