Case law

Travel Committee, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

91 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1992

The sales agreement did not require agencies to establish separate trust accounts for sales proceeds. … The jury is uniquely qualified to make determinations of fact, and this decision constitutes a finding of fact. See 38 C.J.S.

Monarch Academy Baltimore Campus, Inc. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

231 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2017

That is not to say that a stay order pending administrative review can never qualify as a final judgment. In Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. … Second, “the issue of whether a court can lawfully impose such a condition on the government’s power to acquire property by condemnation is clearly important.” Id.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa

197 Md. App. 463 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2011

Once it is established that the injury was a cause of the disability, temporary disability benefits are awarded without regard to the existence of a pre-existing condition. See Martin v. Allegany Cnty. Bd. Of Cnty. … In the event that the Redskins had qualified for any home playoff games, Tupa would also have had to perform in those. 4 .

Ward v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2015

State, the State also asserts that new scientific analyses do not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … Clearly, such new scientific evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence.”). Cf.

Bishop v. State

218 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2014

Clearly he is a liar. We know that because he started out his confession by denying anything. (Emphasis added.) … as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified.” 330 Md. at 107 (citations omitted).

In re: D.M., J.M.

250 Md. App. 541 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 25, 2021

argues, the Department failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was in the best interests of the children to change the permanency plan. … The constitutional right of parents to raise their children without undue inference has been well established.

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.

Otley v. Otley

147 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2002

Appellee’s Option Agreement explicitly defines the options as “intended to qualify as an Incentive Stock Option within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” … The difficulty of establishing a present value and the fact that the options themselves are usually not divisible or transferable make the if, as and when approach desirable.

Broadwater v. State

171 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2006

Judge Ambrose clearly determined that the appellant had received a copy of the charging document, thereby satisfying requirement # 1. … If you qualify for their services, they will provide a lawyer for you. If you don’t qualify for their services, they won’t, and you’ll have to decide if you want to hire one or make other arrangements with a lawyer.

ACandS, Inc. v. Asner

104 Md. App. 608 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 1995

Throughout the late 1950s and 1960s correspondence clearly indicated that asbestosis was an increasing problem among AC & S employees. … The trial court and both parties agree that it was elicited and discussed in a manner such that it did not qualify as the “TLV evidence” that the trial court agreed to exclude in limine.

Marlin v. State

192 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2010

Indeed, we are unaware of any requirement that a person must have led a blameless life in order to qualify as a trial witness. Appellant’s reliance on Dorsey v. … Notably, proof of use of a firearm is not required to establish reckless endangerment.

Burdette v. Lascola

40 Md. App. 720 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1978

It is established doctrine in Maryland that any change which materially alters the principal contract discharges the surety from liability. Prodis v. … We cannot say he was clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086. IV. “Was the chancellor ...

Pattison v. Pattison

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 2024

“A waiver of a contractual provision must be clearly established and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Woznicki v. GEICO Gen. Ins. … (“A condition precedent in a contract . . . must be performed or happen before a duty of immediate performance arises on the promise which the condition qualifies.”); CHG Intern., Inc. v.

Arthur E. Selnick Associates, Inc. v. Howard County Maryland

206 Md. App. 667 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2012

USPS then filed a motion to dismiss itself as a defendant under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which was granted. … If the way of necessity was not implied at the time of the grant ..., it cannot be established by a subsequent necessity.

Four Star Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v. Council of Unit Owners of Carousel Center Condominium, Inc.

132 Md. App. 551 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2000

The court shall hold a hearing if a hearing is requested and the exceptions or any response clearly show a need to take evidence---- Appellants’ objections are four-fold. … In the foreclosure action for the units, Case No. 23-C-99-324, Siamak Hamzavi and CH & R qualify as parties, but not Four Star. In conclusion, appellants did too little too late and in the wrong court.

Farmers Bank v. Chicago Title Insurance

163 Md. App. 158 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2005

The trial court’s finding on this point, a mixed question of law and fact, was clearly erroneous. See State v. … [an appellate court] will not set aside the judgement of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous”).

Hill v. State

247 Md. App. 377 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2020

Having established the appropriate test for federal ex post facto violations, we shall examine specific cases to assist us in applying the test to the instant case. … In any event, the Fuller language relied on by the State is clearly dicta. See Howsare v. State, 185 Md.

Gantt v. State

241 Md. App. 276 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

So I need to know – I can’t qualify you as an expert. … If, arguendo, this Batson issue were before us on the merits, we would defer to the not clearly erroneous factfinding of Judge Abrams.

In Re Shirley B.

191 Md. App. 678 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2010

I guess you could say tiers that someone would be in for qualifying for services, and she’s in the second tier. … . *709 at 588, 943 A.2d 53 (finding that reasonable efforts were made was clearly erroneous); In re Ashley E., 158 Md.App. at 167 , 854 A.2d 893 (finding that reasonable efforts were made was not clearly erroneous).

Spell v. State

239 Md. App. 495 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

The court stated that appellant clearly was “operating a motor vehicle by sitting in the car with the car running,” and therefore, the police “had probable cause to effectuate the arrest. … at 672 (“The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a search may qualify as a search incident to arrest even if, sequentially, the search occurs prior to the arrest.”).