Case law

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Reading

109 Md. App. 89 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 1996

Reading were a person without a mental disability, her status as a passenger clearly would have ended when she was safely discharged. … Clearly, if she were not mentally disabled, her decision to cross the street would constitute the intervening, superseding cause of the accident.

Sewell v. State

239 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2018

The State’s Attorney, whom the plaintiffs sued in only his personal capacity, was dismissed from the case based on prosecutorial immunity. Id. at 274-75. … The remaining evidence, he avers, was insufficient to establish misconduct in office.

McMillian v. State

85 Md. App. 367 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1991

“[T]he burden of establishing exigent circumstances is on the State, and ... the facts and circumstances upon which the question of reasonableness depends must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles … Clearly, an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy reaches its zenith in the home.

Merriken v. Merriken

87 Md. App. 522 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1991

On appeal, we held that these findings were not clearly erroneous. Id. at 530-31 , 497 A.2d 485 . … Given the evidence before it, the trial court clearly was justified in finding that these assets indeed were inherited property.

Simpson v. State

121 Md. App. 263 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1998

When facts are in dispute, we accept them as found by the trial judge, unless *277 he is clearly erroneous in his judgment on the evidence before him, giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility … THE COURT: And if they can come to all kinds of different conclusions, that is, he’s not qualified to and his credibility on the observations that he made — you’re going too far. I’m going to sustain the objection.

Hamrick v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2024

State, 357 Md. 141, 156[] (1999) (“Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a defendant is protected against multiple punishment for the same conduct, unless the [General Assembly] clearly intended to impose … App. 322, 335 (1997) (“[S]etting out various mentes reae and circumstantial modalities that will qualify as murder in the first degree[] do not represent separate crimes but only establish alternative ways of finding the

Dabney v. State

159 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2004

From the beginning, it has been indisputably established that the common law misdemeanor consists of two *235 elements: 1) the mens rea of intending to commit a particular crime and 2) the actus reus of taking a substantial … Whether a crime qualifies as being in the nature of an attempt may ultimately depend on how much of its collective criminality is wrapped up in its attempt component.

Anderson v. Board of Appeals

22 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1974

Herbert Fleischer, an architect, engineer and planner, who had prepared the site plan for the subject property, qualified as an expert. … It defines the hardship which must be shown as the equivalent of a constitutional taking, and utilizes the same criteria employed by the Court of Appeals for establishing undue hardship.

Rudder v. State

181 Md. App. 426 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2008

State, 302 Md. 434, 444-47 , 488 A.2d 955 (1985), clearly establish that there is in this situation but one conspiracy. … Prosecutors are not immune to the tendency of multiplying charges. Ezenwa v.

Blackstone International Ltd. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

216 Md. App. 471 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2014

Even if a [] plaintiff does not allege facts which clearly bring the claim within or without the policy coverage, the insurer still must defend if there is a potentiality that the … brought to its attention that might establish a potentiality of coverage.”).

Brooks v. Bienkowski

150 Md. App. 87 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2003

The witness has been qualified as an expert witness in the courts of Anne Arundel and three other Maryland counties. … Bienkowski was positioned was not clearly provided by circumstantial evidence provided by other witnesses.

Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Calvert County v. Ackerman

162 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 2005

Our construction of an insurance policy is guided by the well-established principles applicable to the construction of contracts in general. See ABC Imaging of Wash., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. … These dictionary definitions, while incorporating the concept of occupancy by a person or persons, do not suggest that actual, continuous occupancy is required in order for property to qualify as a dwelling or a building

Darnestown Valley-WHM Ltd. Partnership v. McDonald's Corp.

102 Md. App. 577 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 1994

(ii) Darnestown, as the purported landlord, had not established a prima facie case for breach of lease under Section 8-402.1? … To qualify as appellee’s “landlord,” thus enabling it to maintain an action under this statute, appellant must establish that it has sufficient legal title and right of possession to the property under the Deed of Trust.

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Balderrama

227 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2016

Not every complaint about discrimination or unfairness, however, qualifies as protected activity. … Reason for Discharge Having established that Mr.

Burks v. State

96 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1993

In the first place, it clearly would not have suited the tastes of either of them. In the second place, it was only a few minutes’ drive from Mr. … The appellant fails abjectly to qualify for such derivative standing. In the first place, he was not legitimately on the premises as the bona fide guest of Eric Cada. To force Mr.

Harrod v. State

39 Md. App. 230 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1978

Counsel began to lay the necessary foundation to establish a prior inconsistent statement when an objection was made to the form of his question. … Stump was solely for that purpose — to establish a prior inconsistent statement on the part of Mrs. Harrod. The rebuttal testimony of Ms.

Armstrong v. State

69 Md. App. 23 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 14, 1986

As to Johnson, who argues that Pennington was not sufficiently qualified to render such an opinion, we simply disagree. … State, 57 Md.App. 274, 281 , 469 A.2d 909 (1984), we summarized the rule regarding expert opinion testimony thusly: “The Court of Appeals of Maryland has established the test for admissibility of expert testimony.

Dave v. Steinmuller

157 Md. App. 653 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2004

wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established … also indicated that there were a variety of other types of jobs, such as teaching, bank management, loan and finance company management, car rental management, and mortgage loan officer positions for which Dave could be qualified

Stuckey v. State

141 Md. App. 143 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 2001

Baltimore County Police Officer William Pumphrey, who was qualified as an expert in traffic accident reconstruction, examined the scene and the vehicle driven by appellant. … Pursuant to § 388, “grossly negligent ” operation of a motor vehicle is clearly an element of the crime of manslaughter by automobile.

Byrne v. Amalgamated Transit Workers' Union

73 Md. App. 551 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1988

Under this mechanism, the court clerk monitors the docket and notifies the parties when a case reaches the age which, under subsection (c), would qualify it for dismissal. … The rule does not establish a procedure for the benefit of a civil defendant. Ewachiw v. Director of Finance, 70 Md.App. 58, 71 , 519 A.2d 1327 (1987).