Case law

Lang v. Levi

198 Md. App. 154 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2011

However, the Rules of the Beth Din clearly indicate otherwise. … The Supreme Court has held that both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit judicial review of religious questions. See Grossman, supra, at 183.

Johnson v. State

142 Md. App. 172 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2002

When conflicting evidence is presented, this Court accepts the facts found by the hearing judge, unless clearly erroneous. Riddick v. … Clearly, “a reasonable search under such circumstances is predicated upon a prior lawful arrest.

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

Jordan v. State

82 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1990

, i.e., the establishment, of the conspiracy counts of the indictments. … Now, on this evidence, Count 2, dealing with the conspiracy is — to murder is clearly made out, because the conspiracy would be made out at the time the original plan was made.

Wilson v. State

174 Md. App. 434 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2007

The court stated that the officer" “clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of McRae’s vehicle without a warrant, based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car.” Id. at 422. … Thus, we conclude, as did the district court below, that the odor of burnt marijuana alone, when recognized by a person or canine qualified to recognize the odor, is only sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless

Wood v. State

196 Md. App. 146 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2010

Being at a critical stage would qualify an “accused” for Sixth Amendment assistance, but if you are not yet “accused” even a critical stage would not help. … The appellant has not only failed to establish any such falsity or reckless disregard, he has not even remotely alleged it. He cannot get to where he wants to go.

Paradiso v. Paradiso

88 Md. App. 343 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1991

[Appellee’s counsel]: Well, if he’s qualified to explain what the value is, certainly I’ll agree to it. COURT: Go ahead. [Appellant’s counsel]: Can you just tell us what you believe the stuff is worth, Ricardo [sic]? … In Pope , the evidence clearly indicated that the father had decided to make a gift of his home to his two sons — Robert and Tommy.

Walker v. State

206 Md. App. 13 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2012

752 A.2d 606 (2000) (“[T]he gravamen of the offense is not the sexual act itself, which is punishable in its own right under other statutes, but rather the abuse of the child[,] [which] can as easily arise from several qualifying … Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we cannot conclude that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in its fact-finding.

Parker v. State

156 Md. App. 252 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2004

testimony, but Judge Moylan nevertheless discussed the admissibility of the third complaint: Although it seems clear that this out-of-court declaration, just as those to [her sister] and to the school counselor, could have qualified … Day’s testimony, a complete chain of custody could not be established for the underwear. The trial court ruled that Ms.

Maizel v. Comptroller

250 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2021

[wa]s taken” relative to the administrative ruling that 7 “established” their right to a refund, and their deadline for filing for a refund therefore qualified for the TG § … But, according to the Comptroller, this plain and unambiguous statute clearly establishes: “A taxpayer has one year to file a refund claim after that taxpayer receives a final decision from an administrative board or an

Johnson v. State

21 Md. App. 214 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1974

This rule, of course, does not immunize the procedure pursuant to which an accused is sentenced from scrutiny under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker v. State, 3 Md. … If he is in fact innocent, then he must have faith that this will *229 ultimately be established and act accordingly.

Jackson v. State

120 Md. App. 113 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Clearly, the merits of appellant’s motion to dismiss is completely separate from the merits of the criminal proceeding against him. … Accordingly, assuming that the agreement did include a waiver of Hicks, there is a clearly established jurisdictional predicate for judicial review of the agreement and enforcement, if appropriate.

Jong Hee Park v. United States Lines, Inc.

50 Md. App. 389 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1982

We note, however, that the reason for this exception was the doctrine of sovereign immunity and, as such, should have no effect on such third party suits as here where appellants are attempting to recover damages, not from … Lines responsible in tort for their initial failure to suspend the operations when they clearly should have done so.

Elkton Care Center Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Quality Care Management, Inc.

145 Md. App. 532 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2002

The economic goals were established by the budget projections of May of '94, which the did not come close to meeting. Q. Now you say their budget, projections, what are you referring to? A. … “When the disclosure is made to the adverse party, ... the distinction between waiver of attorney client privilege and of work product immunity disappears.” Hartford Fire Insurance v.

Alban v. Fiels

210 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2013

THE COURT: To the extent that your doctor got in testimony[ 1 ] that part of her PTSD is going to be related to being trapped in the car and worrying whether she would live or die, that’s clearly relevant and clearly admissible … It is well-established that [A] ruling reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would not have made the same ruling.

Shapiro v. Greenfield

136 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2000

Whether the trial court’s ruling that the Clinton Crossings Shopping Center was a corporate opportunity of College Park was clearly erroneous? *5 II. … That receiver, however, failed to qualify, and on May 15,1940, a second receiver was appointed. Appellant appealed the second order.

Johnson v. CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

145 Md. App. 96 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2002

To qualify for an award the claimant must prove that a serious financial hardship would ensue as a result of the criminal injury if an award is not made [Section 825(f)(1) J. … The, [sic] you clearly have a public policy—the Legislature has already addressed it. It said no.

Ahalt v. Montgomery County

113 Md. App. 14 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 1996

Thus, a link must be established between the total incapacity and the event. The Appellant’s condition, osteoarthritis, is the underlying cause of his total incapacity based on uncontradicted medical evidence. … The fairly debatable test is analogous to the clearly erroneous standard under Rule 8-131(c) and a decision is fairly debatable if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole.

Rankin v. Brinton Woods of Frankford

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2019

The language of the advance directive clearly established the condition precedent for its efficacy, by stating “[m]y agent’s authority becomes operative when my attending of adding fewer sheets of paper to the [c]ourt … In Dickerson, the Court of Appeals qualified the applicability of the Health Care Decisions Act (HCDA),9 stating that “the HCDA pertains only to ‘health care decisions,’” and “establishes procedures by which an individual

Jones v. State

29 Md. App. 182 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1975

Parenthetically we note, then, that it was clearly understood that the question sought to be preserved and presented to us is that expressed by appellant in his brief, i.e.: “Whether the Maryland Constitution establishing … Appellant made no such request below, nor does he indicate any interest upon appeal as to what extent, if any, such qualifying instructions should be granted upon request.