Case law

Buckley v. Brethren Mutual Insurance

207 Md. App. 574 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2012

The record clearly indicates that all parties, including Brethren, intended that the release be limited to claims between Ms. Buckley and Mr. Betts/GEICO. … We must answer the question of whether a broad release that releases “all other persons, firms or corporations” from liability can immunize an injured insured’s insurance company from issuing a UM payment when § 19-511(e)

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

Young v. Allstate Insurance

120 Md. App. 216 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1998

The policy clearly indicates that appellant, as named insured, is an “insured person.” … Although both parties in the instant case rely upon Goodwin , it clearly can be distinguished from the case at hand.

Langston v. Langston

136 Md. App. 203 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2000

But, it may not set aside factual findings of the trial court unless clearly erroneous, nor disturb the trial judge’s discretionary rulings absent a finding of abuse of discretion. … Langston argues that the Agreement did not permit appellant to bypass the court and decide for himself that he qualified for a reduction in alimony.

Coleman v. Anne Arundel County Police Department

136 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2001

not qualified.... … Despite the use of the words “clearly” and “clearly convinced,” it is difficult to ignore the Board’s prior recognition of the required standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence: [By the prosecutor:] Keep in

Edmonds v. Murphy

83 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1990

the jurisdiction of the courts in specific cases, clearly it was a proper exercise of legislative power. … First adopted by the Court of Appeals in Waldron, supra, this “heightened scrutiny” test was most clearly articulated in Hornbeck v. Somerset Co.

Head v. State

171 Md. App. 642 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2006

For purposes of review by the trial court or on appeal, the continuing objection is effective only as to questions clearly within its scope. 6 . … Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there is authority for admitting even those that clearly are.

Smith v. Smith

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2025

Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. … Smith’s military benefits as provided in the CPO followed the Bangs formula as established in Bangs v. Bangs, 59 Md.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Regency Furniture, Inc.

183 Md. App. 710 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 2009

We shall review the trial court’s decision on both the law and the evidence, upholding factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but subjecting its legal conclusions to de novo review. … Nationwide ruled out coverage under A.l.b(2) because “[b]uilding property ... on the roof of the building is not in our insured’s care, custody, and control and does not qualify for coverage.”

Schackow v. Medical-Legal Consulting Service, Inc.

46 Md. App. 179 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 1980

The consultants were to assist counsel by helping them to understand the medical aspects of the case and locating qualified physicians willing to testify. … That finding, supported by substantial evidence, is not, on this record, clearly in error. Ill Mr.

Cole v. Sullivan

110 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 15, 1996

Sullivan was qualified as Personal Representative. A short time later, Mr. Cole blocked the decedent’s *84 driveway with a truckload of stone, timber, and severed deer heads. In addition, Mr. … Nonetheless, the Coles believe the Sullivans had the burden of establishing a prima facie case for punitive damages 5 before inquiring into the Coles’ financial worth.

Blythe v. State

161 Md. App. 492 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2005

While the justification for an exemption based on interference with law enforcement proceedings cannot be established generieally in most cases, it may be thus established, however, when a case is actually pending. … It relied blanketly on the pendency of the criminal prosecution to establish such interference.

Wilkerson v. State

139 Md. App. 557 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 2001

This step is matter of discretion for the court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused. *570 See Streater, 352 Md. at 807-08 , 724 A.2d 111 ; Terry v. … Lucas’ statement, he contends, qualifies as a statement against penal interest under Maryland Rule 5 — 804(b)(3) 4 and must be admitted, because Lucas was without question unavailable to testify and at risk of being found

Graham v. State

146 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2002

For it to have been constitutional, therefore, it must have qualified under one of the firmly established exceptions to the warrant requirement. … This particular seizure of the appellant’s person failed to qualify under Terry v. Ohio for several independent reasons.

Minh-Vu Hoang v. Hewitt Avenue Associates, LLC

177 Md. App. 562 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2007

He found that the default orders established liability for breach of contract. … At trial, the purchaser qualified as an expert in real estate transactions. By that time, he had completed development of the subdivision.

Smith v. Smith

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2025

Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. … Smith’s military benefits as provided in the CPO followed the Bangs formula as established in Bangs v. Bangs, 59 Md.

Shannon v. State

241 Md. App. 233 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

Firearms examination established that the shell casing recovered at appellant’s residence was from a cartridge fired from the Glock recovered at 1645 Abbotston Street. … State, 320 Md. 410, 414-15 (1990) (a reasonable defendant would conclude that he was charged under a particular subsection to the exclusion of another subsection when the indictment charged the defendant “in a way which clearly

Stone v. State

178 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2008

should be remanded to the suppression court for decision because that court failed, in its ruling, “to specifically determine the value of the camera and resolve the State’s conflicting evidence.” *442 Maryland law is well-established … that the owner of personal property is presumptively qualified to testify about the value of his goods.

Oarr v. Government Employees Insurance

39 Md. App. 122 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1978

It is clearly insurance on the vehicle and is not in the nature of a personal accident policy. … The Ford, for example, would not qualify either as an “owned” or a “nonowned” automobile under a separate policy insuring the Chevrolet.

Livingston v. Naylor

173 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2007

Ricketts, 153 Md.App. 281, 326 , 836 A.2d 707 (2003) (“ ‘[a] final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition … Livingston argues that the above statements in Shaffer clearly required that the Maryland court satisfy the International Shoe standard of having sufficient minimum contacts with him — and not just the garnishee — before