Case law

Dubs v. State

2 Md. App. 524 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1967

Hospital records do qualify under the statute and are admissible in criminal cases. Dunn v. State, 226 Md. 463 . … This evidence was clearly not “entirely insufficient” for the case to go to the jury for its determination of whether the killing was murder in the first or second degree and we feel that the power of the trial court to grant

Balt. Action Legal Team v. Off. of State's Atty.

253 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2021

The court read broadly the Court of Appeals’ holding in E.I. du Pont de Nemours, regarding what documents qualify as attorney work-product. … We concluded this was a First Amendment violation and that “[a] decision based on an unconstitutional consideration is clearly arbitrary and capricious.”

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

Stouffer v. Reid

184 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 2009

STATE INTERESTS The circuit court based its determinations on Mack, supra, 329 Md. 188 , 618 A.2d 744 , which addresses the qualified common law right of a competent adult to refuse medical care. … Appellant argues that such findings clearly demonstrate harm to the integrity of the medical profession and support compelling appellee to accept medical treatment.

Nicholson v. State

239 Md. App. 228 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 2018

We, therefore, decline to depart from the general rule, clearly stated in Sutton, that self-defense is not a defense to felony murder. … The State’s criminal indictment against Nicholson clearly satisfies the requirements of Crim.

Hearn v. Hearn

177 Md. App. 525 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2007

The Order clearly establishes the Agreement between the parties. I have no recollection of “net” benefits even being discussed. 3. … Parol evidence is admissible to establish a claim for reformation of a written contract.

Grady Management, Inc. v. Epps

218 Md. App. 712 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2014

Arguing that the jury in the breach of lease case found that the excessive noise and threat qualified as a substantial breach of Mr. … Clearly, the first and third requirements of res judicata and the second, third, and fourth requirements for collateral estoppel have been met in the breach of lease case.

Albrecht v. State

97 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

That factual observation clearly contemplated an intentional firing of the gun. … That does not qualify for what Chief Judge Murphy described in Minor v.

Sanders v. State

1 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 17, 1967

On the contrary, we find that the court’s ruling with regard to this contention clearly prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. … The provisions of Code, Art. 27, § 488, establishing the maximum sentence for the crime of robbery with a deadly weapon, “or accessory thereto”, do not make an accessory a principal.

Balt. Police Dept v. Brooks

247 Md. App. 193 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2020

We defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact, except where “the judgment of the trial court on the evidence [is] clearly erroneous.” Md. Rule 8-131(c). … filing based on the department’s policy and practice in place at the time. 16 We noted that signing a document that was little more than a non-binding proposal to charge did not qualify

Anne Arundel County Fish & Game Conservation Ass'n v. Carlucci

83 Md. App. 121 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1990

Even assuming that appellant qualifies for an exemption under this regulation because its activities constitute “sporting, amusement, and entertainment events,” however, this exemption would not bar appellees, who reside … Appellant asserts that the court was clearly erroneous in concluding that the noise generated by the Club *131 constituted an actionable private nuisance. The applicable law refutes its contention.

Pilkington v. Pilkington, II

230 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2016

The separate motions were required because the children presented different jurisdictional and custodial issues. 5 FL § 9.5-101(h) provides that a state qualifies as a child’s home state for jurisdictional … That means we must evaluate jurisdiction under FL §§ 9.5- 201(a)(2) and determine whether, if not Colorado, another jurisdiction qualified as R.P.’s home state. After Ms.

Bremer v. State

18 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 1973

. * 1 There was no *298 call for that contention because clearly the evidence was sufficient in law to establish that he carried a handgun on his person, and that he used it in the commission of crimes of violence, assaulting … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors

Allstate Insurance v. Kponve

225 Md. App. 370 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2015

Kponve under its contract had never been established. … Contrary to appellee’s argument, the issue of which party had the burden of proof clearly was raised in the trial -9- court.

Herring v. State

43 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 1979

parties agree, in view of the warrantless search of the jacket, that in order for the search to have been permissible it must have fallen within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, and that failure to qualify … In deciding that “the police may, under appropriate circumstances, establish a routine procedure for inventorying the contents of any container lawfully seized,” id. at 233 , this Court tempered its decision in Waine by stating

Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Cashcall, Inc.

225 Md. App. 313 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2015

it acting as a “credit services business,” as defined by the MCSBA, because it never received any compensation “directly” from a Maryland consumer for its services and, therefore, under extant Maryland caselaw, did not qualify … Id. 16  The foregoing legislative history showed, according to the Court of Appeals, that the MCSBA “was clearly industry specific,” as it targeted third-party business

Adcor Industries v. Beretta U.S.A.

250 Md. App. 135 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2021

The resolution of this appeal, however, does not require us to decide which categories or pieces of information did or did not qualify as “Confidential Information.” … This rule clearly applies here. Although Adcor invites us to create an exception when the broken contract happens to be an NDA, it provides no cogent reason for doing so.

Hopkins v. State

19 Md. App. 414 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 1973

In this case the appellant established that the population of Prince George’s County 1 — the place of the crime and the indictment — according to the 1970 census, was 660,567 people. … The thrust of the appellant’s attack upon the admission of the autopsy report is that it is not clear that the doctor who performed the autopsy is qualified to make the conclusions contained in the report.

Montgomery County v. TAMARA A.

178 Md. App. 658 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 2008

determination that Madeline, like Nathaniel, is a CINA, we said: The circuit court's determination that Madeline was at a substantial risk of being subjected to the same conditions to which Nathaniel was exposed was not clearly … The juvenile court's factual finding, which we affirmed, established that Ms. A. is neglecting Shirah, as that term is defined in CJP § 3-801(s).