Case law

Miles v. State

141 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2001

In Maryland, indeed, it could not even qualify as falling into disuse, having never been used in the first place. “[W]e know of no instance in Maryland where it has ever been resorted to.” Id. … Under Maryland law, Ruth Andresen has established no grounds upon which the trial court’s final judgment may be reexamined.

Griffin v. State

242 Md. App. 432 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

In its memorandum opinion, the circuit court denied appellant’s petition, finding that he failed to establish that he was suffering significant collateral consequences, and that pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, … determining whether the ultimate disposition of the coram nobis court constitutes an abuse of discretion, appellate courts should not disturb the coram nobis court’s factual findings unless they are clearly

Costley v. State

175 Md. App. 90 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2007

Appellant contends that the question was necessary because the State attempted to establish that the motive for the killing was that appellant believed Mrs. … It was clearly admissible under Md.Code, Article 22, s 8 which has been construed by Benjamin v.

Hosain v. Malik

108 Md. App. 284 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1996

apply the best interests of the child test is clearly erroneous. … But the court never established the correlation between that conduct and Mahak’s best interests.

Valk Manufacturing Co. v. Rangaswamy

74 Md. App. 304 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

The County’s mechanical engineer, who qualified as an expert in the field of safety engineering, testified that the design of the hitch was unreasonably dangerous. … The general consensus clearly favors “bystander” recovery. See generally 63 Am.Jur.2d, Products Liability § 144; W. Keeton, supra, § 100, at 703-704 (5th ed. 1984); F. Harper, F. James, & O.

Stouffer v. State

118 Md. App. 590 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1997

Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Criminal Agency In urging us to find insufficient evidence to support his convictions, appellant initially attacks the lack of any evidence to “pinpoint the crime scene or establish appellant … been summarized as being “whether there is a sufficient causal connection between the felony and the homicide depends upon whether the defendant’s felony dictated his conduct which led to the homicide. ” We hold that, to qualify

Mulligan v. State

6 Md. App. 600 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 1969

He stated that it would be difficult to re-establish at this point. … It cannot be clearly ascertained from the record whether the appellant was advised of his “rights” before he was asked this question.

Jones-Harris v. State

179 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 2008

The Court of Appeals has recognized that alternate jurors “clearly are different than regular jurors ... and, in a sense, their status *90 is that of a third party.” Stokes v. … The prosecutor did not suggest that appellant stipulated to anything, and the jurors were clearly instructed that it was their job to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

White v. State

66 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1986

Appellant also analogizes to post-indictment visual line-up cases which clearly set forth the rule that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to be present at a visual line-up. See Gilbert v. … The document, however, was not read to the jury as evidence, but in the voir dire qualifying Mr. Kleper. The “rule of completeness” therefore does not apply. See Bowers v.

Claggett v. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation

182 Md. App. 346 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2008

. § 2-502 (establishing the Foundation). … Claggett claims, there would have been no need for the Legislature to establish an “unrestricted” lot right.

David A. v. Karen S.

242 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2019

DISCUSSION “The trial court’s award of fees and costs is a matter of discretion and is not subject to change unless clearly erroneous.” … the petitioner’s formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child.’”

Hardison v. State

118 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1997

Before the requirements of Rule 5-613(b) come into play, however, the prior statement of the witness must be established as inconsistent with his trial *238 testimony. See Stevenson v. … Court of Appeals has observed since then that, even if a prior inconsistent statement meets the requirements of Rule 5-802.1(a), it will not be admitted substantively if circumstances suggest that the declarant did not clearly

Markey v. Wolf

92 Md. App. 137 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1992

It was established that the restrictions were a selling point and important to the purchasers. … It is clearly understood to mean “revoke” or “abolish.” ...

Kouadio v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2018

The baby had no pulse, and the paramedics were unable to intubate Amir or establish access for an IV line. … State, supra, 417 Md. 31, which also is not cited, though it clearly is on point. See Md. Rule 19-303.3(a)(3).

Wilson v. State

148 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2002

As we have mentioned, Wilson arid McCoy are unable to establish that the delay, clearly of constitutional dimension, in any way impaired their ability to present their defense. … The State has the power to grant immunity. [Appellants do] not. We are not on equal footing with the State as far as making Mr. McNeil available.

Santoni v. Moodie

53 Md. App. 129 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1982

The appellees did, however, raise two contentions on cross-appeal: (1) that they were entitled to governmental immunity, and (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of twelve other deaths of persons who had received … We hold that the evidence was clearly admissible and that the refusal to accept it constituted reversible error. Speaking directly to the admissibility of such evidence is C.

Brown v. State

182 Md. App. 138 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2008

Under C.L. § 3 — 202(a)(2), any assault with a “firearm” qualifies as first-degree assault. And, all firearms, including those excepted from the definition of “handgun,” are included. … In sum, Kucharczyk “is clearly distinguishable from [a] case [in which] the State’s witness told but one consistent story at the trial.” Montgomery v.

Dempsey v. State

24 Md. App. 8 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1974

[T]he judge's remark clearly indicated his disbelief of the witness and unquestionably influenced the jury's appraisal of the credibility of the witness." … App. 182 , 273 A.2d 212 (1971), a state trooper, without qualifying as an expert, testified as to the probable point of impact in an automobile collision.

Black v. Leatherwood Motor Coach Corp.

92 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1992

These cases clearly indicate that the party seeking to apply Maryland law on public policy grounds bears a “heavy burden.” Bruchey, 248 Md. at 674 , 238 A.2d 115 . … Linton, 46 Md.App. 660 , 420 A.2d 1249 (1980), this Court held that the public policy behind the Maryland principle of interspousal immunity in tort cases was not a sufficient basis for overruling the principle of lex loci

Wilson v. Shady Grove Adventist Hospital

191 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2010

The claimant must first establish the occurrence of a compensable accidental injury. … Smith, 183 Md. 274, 284 , 37 A.2d 340 (1944) (There must be something else, which must clearly appear to have prejudiced the appellant.)).