Case law

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

State v. Brand

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2025

Brand established prejudice. … As relevant here, the Supreme Court rejected Redman’s contention “that prejudice should be presumed because the right of removal is a fundamental right or qualifies as a structural error not susceptible to establishing

Julian v. Buonassissi

183 Md. App. 678 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 2009

According to the document, appellant agreed to resolve any negative credit balances as of December 18, 2006, the intent being to improve her credit score in order to qualify for refinancing to enable repurchase. … We conclude that the plain language of the statute clearly indicates the legislative intent to make such agreements voidable, not void.

Klein v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of America

117 Md. App. 317 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 24, 1997

What is relevant here is that clearly none of the three September 1982 communications qualifies as a “demand for money or property.” After all, American Benefits had not been damaged in any way on September 23-24. … The Berry Court discussed the attorney’s letter by observing: We think this letter, fairly read, clearly qualified as a “claim.”

Cosden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

41 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1979

a summation value or cost . of reproduction new less depreciation, and as a guide to establishing the asking price for the property, cannot be faulted. … We cannot say that it failed to exercise the degree of care required of it and by no means are we prepared to state that the chancellor was clearly wrong in so concluding.

Mattingly v. State

89 Md. App. 187 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1991

In addition, the State also contends that the evidence clearly implied that separate telephone calls were made with regard to each contract amount. This is not clear from the evidence. … The criminal law recognizes the possibility of conditional and qualified intents.”

Manikhi v. Mass Transit Administration

127 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1999

Yet, if Ovid acted as a private party, his actions were clearly contrary to State policy. Cf. Lugar, 457 U.S. at 940 , 102 S.Ct. 2744 . … The court also stated that it would dismiss the claims on the alternate ground that they were barred by sovereign immunity.

Ellerba v. State

41 Md. App. 712 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1979

Qualified as an expert in the field of fire investigation, Captain Robert Hatoff of the Fire Investigation Bureau of the Baltimore City Fire Department, testified that “the fire was incendiary in origin.” … (b) It need not establish by itself the truth of the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of proof.

Zazanis v. Gold Coast Mall, Inc.

63 Md. App. 364 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 1985

the expiration of the two days, issue its warrant, directed to any official of the county entitled to serve process, ordering him to cause the landlord to have again and repossess the property by putting him (or his duly qualified … [This provision] was clearly intended to meliorate the plight of the tenant who might be unable to pay the rent on the day it falls due but can manage to pay it before he is actually evicted. Id. at 402 , 470 A.2d 388 .

Townsend Baltimore Garage, LLC v. Supervisor of Assessments

215 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 2013

Although real estate owned by the State would ordinarily be exempt from property taxes, the Supervisor asserts that the present property does not qualify for an exemption because the improvements, which were constructed upon … Clearly, if this was a very short-term lease, that it wouldn’t— most of the characteristics of ownership would not— wouldn’t apply.

Kelly v. State

16 Md. App. 533 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1973

Moreover, the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard any reference to a lie detector test and clearly instructed them that they were not to speculate about it. … Brunell has been qualified as a chemist I am certain. By this time if the jury is not impressed they will never be.” An unrecorded bench conference ensued.

Coscan Washington, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

87 Md. App. 602 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1991

The record clearly indicates that this was an important consideration in the instant case. … The Planning Board’s decision was clearly based, in part, on an intent to preserve a scenic area, a purpose well within its authority.

Washington v. State

179 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 2008

While the trial court's instruction clearly deviated in substance from the ABA's recommended charge, it was not coercive. … Courts, in establishing parameters for an Allen instruction have employed different language to convey the spirit of the charge.

Venner v. State

30 Md. App. 599 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1976

At a later hearing the State called a qualified chemist, who testified that he had received the balloons and examined their contents. … “Robinson in oral argument before us conceded the legality of his warrantless arrest and clearly it was legal. Wescott v. State, 11 Md. App. 305 .

State v. Ruben

127 Md. App. 430 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1999

Consequently, appellee characterizes the present dispute over whether his case was prejudiced as a factual dispute that this Court should reverse only if clearly erroneous. … In short, appellee can not establish particularized prejudice to his case as a result of the destroyed evidence.

B-Line Medical, LLC v. Interactive Digital Solutions, Inc.

209 Md. App. 22 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2012

Create an AV bid package to be sent to multiple qualified AV integrators that will finalize detailed system design, and perform the necessary AV integration. 5. … The party complaining about the trial court’s denial of a requested instruction “must not only establish error, but also show prejudice resulting from that error.”

Blitzer v. Breski

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2023

The evidence adduced at trial established that plaintiff endured a significant physical and emotional trauma as a result of the bite. … The evidence adduced at trial established that Appellee endured significant physical and emotional trauma as a result of the bite.

Fitzgerald v. State

153 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 2003

That the “alert” to the presence of narcotics by a trained and certified drug-sniffing canine is ample to establish probable cause is well established law. … The Burden of Proof as to Applicability On the threshold issue of Fourth Amendment applicability, moreover, the burden of proof is clearly on the defendant to establish that applicability. Rakas v.

Sanders v. State

66 Md. App. 590 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1986

State, supra, opined that: At a minimum, in order to qualify as past recollection recorded, the party who seeks to move the statement into evidence must show some impairment of present recollection. 294 Md. at 701 , 452 A … Appellant, while conceding proof of the corpus delicti, “nonetheless submits that under the facts of this case his ‘alleged confession’ is insufficient to establish his criminal agency.”

Viles v. Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals

230 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2016

This appeal arises out of a 2013 decision by the Baltimore City Planning Commission to modify some of the terms of a planned unit development that had been established by the Baltimore City Council in 2010. … App. 659, 610 (1992), as authority for their contentions that the Planning Commission qualifies as an administrative official, and that its approval of the PUD modification qualifies as a decision made pursuant to Title