Case law

Molovinsky v. Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc.

154 Md. App. 262 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2003

Gale sought LaBarre’s opinion as to whether the assets would be immune from his creditors if the account was in the Molovin-skys’ joint names. … Without citation to authority, they argue that “[t]here is not a shred of evidence in the record of this trial which establishes, tends to establish or even suggests that Arlene Molovinsky is liable to” the Council for the

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.

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.

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation

110 Md. App. 677 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1996

The Commission bears the burden of showing that the Restaurant fulfills the requirements necessary to qualify for the exemption. Pittman, 180 Md. at 460 , 25 A.2d 466 . … As stated by the appellee in his brief, the concession granted by the lease was the concession ‘in its hotel,’ and was clearly intended to be the concession of the privilege for the entire hotel.

Henry v. State

184 Md. App. 146 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2009

In this case, however, Henry did not clearly indicate a present intent to discharge his attorney. Rule 4-215(e) “is silent as to what level of discourse is required to discharge counsel.” … The request does “not need to be a talismanic phrase or artfully worded to qualify as a request to discharge, so long as a court could reasonably conclude that [a person] sought to discharge his counsel.”

Wynn v. State

117 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 1997

The fact that the offenses were committed by the same person does not qualify them to be admitted under the exception. Jones, 284 Md. at 243 , 395 A.2d 1182 . … We see no reason that the testimony was insufficient to persuade the trial judge clearly and convincingly that the “other crime” occurred.

Clark v. State

140 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2001

In the case at hand, the evidence withheld clearly would not have negated guilt. … Dan has been certified as a qualified cadaver dog once a year since 1991 by the New England State Police Association (NESPA).

Mitchell v. AARP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM

140 Md. App. 101 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2001

STANDARD OF REVIEW Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a twopart test for summary judgment. … The applicants were all younger than twenty and would not have qualified even if Southland had lowered the general minimum of twenty-five to twenty before they made application.

Kang v. State

163 Md. App. 22 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2005

That is clearly hearsay. [PROSECUTOR:] Let me try to narrow the question.... What did she tell you about how that injury was inflicted? … There is nothing in the record in this case that suggests, much less establishes clearly, that the trial judge granted Mr. Kang a continuing objection to all testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by Mrs.

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Mardirossian

184 Md. App. 207 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2009

It is my understanding that such an action would clearly violate Chapter 22A of the Montgomery County Code and could subject you and the corporate entity that owns the property to a fine of up to $1000, up to six months in … Leggett would be entitled to invoke legislative immunity concerning any question that might be asked at the deposition.

Bell v. State

114 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1997

Maryland Rule 5-804 establishes five exceptions to the hearsay rule when a declarant is unavailable. … Certainly, both men were qualified to describe what they personally saw when their attention was focused on the altercation.

Terranova v. Board of Trustees of Fire & Police Employees Retirement System

81 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1989

Upon determination by departmental physicians that you are ... psychologically qualified, a date for your return to duty will be established. Two police department physicians, Dr. Teitlebaum and Dr. … He had also impressed the examiner by his ability to testify clearly, succinctly and intelligently at both hearings. *7 The examiner then found that, as between the two medical opinions, i.e. Dr.

Christensen v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

162 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2005

The court pointed out that, between July 29 and August 5, 1998, the Decedent was told that he “clearly had cancer.” … Of course, this clearly means that a person who suspects wrongdoing must file suit within the time of the statute of limitations.

Doe v. Buccini Pollin Group, Inc.

201 Md. App. 409 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 2011

Appellant’s injuries do not qualify as an “accidental injury” as defined in LE § 9-101(b)(l). Simply put, his injury did not arise out of his employment. … Through a consistent sequence of events, the death of Maggard is clearly traceable to, and likewise arose out of that employment. Travis Creek Fuel Co. v.

State v. Ofori

170 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2006

First and foremost is that of deference to the non-clearly-erroneous fact-finding of the hearing judge. Morris v. … The record establishes that the traffic stop was not so extended.

Hopkins v. State

24 Md. App. 53 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1974

He was qualified to be a grand juror by the fact that you didn’t think he was a truthful person; is that it? A. … Clearly, Jordan and Moore are inapposite and need no discussion. Peters does not stand for the proposition that in order for an indictment to be valid the grand jury must be free of bias. Mr.

Gestl v. Frederick

133 Md. App. 216 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2000

This Court disagreed and held that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in awarding custody of the child to Sharron and Dr. Liss. … M.D., 132 Md.App. 99 , 751 A.2d 9 (2000)(allowing visitation by a former domestic partner who qualified as a “de facto parent” to a non-biological child).

Berkshire Life Insurance v. Maryland Insurance Administration

142 Md. App. 628 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2002

agencies to establish their own internal standards of review. … Berkshire argues that “the medical records do not clearly and irrefutably evince that Mr. Rosenstein was totally disabled.” Even if this is true, “clearly and irrefutably” was not the burden of proof in this case.

State v. Rush

174 Md. App. 259 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2007

Our task on review is only “ ‘to judge the voluntariness of the confession based upon the clearly established facts and in accordance with proper constitutional standards.’ ” Lodowski v. … Here, the material first-level facts are established by the recorded interrogation itself. 15 .

Pink v. Cambridge Acquisition, Inc.

126 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1999

Thus, [statutes which ... establish rights or provide benefits which were not recognized by the common law have frequently been held subject to strict, or restrictive, interpretation. … Clearly, if a less harsh result were intended or if less than strict compliance were deemed sufficient, the Legislature would have so provided by now.