Case law

In Re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. 2152a, 2153a, 2154a in Circuit Court for Allegany County

100 Md. App. 262 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1994

James Miller, a licensed clinical psychologist who had treated Mindy, was qualified by the trial court, without objection, as an expert in the field of psychology. Dr. … In addition, Section 5-525, which confers upon the Social Services Administration of the Department of Human Resources the authority to establish a foster care program, speaks in terms of “... care for minor children.”

Feaster v. State

206 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2012

“[P]aróle is an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals .... … for the moment that the bags were within the appellant’s Chimel perimeter, an issue we will examine infra, the initial looking into the bags for weapons was essentially contemporaneous with the arresting process and would qualify

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.)).

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co.

145 Md. App. 256 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2002

The denial of the jury trial “conclusively determined the disputed question,” and clearly resolved an important issue that was separate from the merits. … The circuit court denied the Governor's motion for summary judgment that had been interposed on absolute immunity grounds.

City of Hyattsville v. Prince George's Cnty. Cncl.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 2022

Council must establish one in the first instance. … Nevertheless, the Eisen parties have established at least one error in the decision to establish a maximum density for townhouses.

Cosden v. MERC.-SAFE DEP. & TR. CO.

41 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1979

a summation value or cost of reproduction new less depreciation, and as a guide to establishing the asking price for the property, cannot be faulted. … We cannot say that it failed to exercise the degree of care required of it and by no means are we prepared to state that the chancellor was clearly wrong in so concluding.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598

109 Md. App. 475 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1996

By any criteria suitable for classifying such matters, it certainly qualifies as “a hard case”; and as Baron Wolfe pointed out, in Winterbottom v. … The court stated: I.C.P.C., Article III(a)(b) (Conditions for Placement) in effect establishes conditions precedent to a subject child’s lawful establishment of residence in a signatory state by requiring compliance with

Board of School Commissioners v. James

96 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1993

one observer must be other than school-based if a rating of Unsatisfactory or Needs Improvement is given *420 —-Any teacher evaluated as Unsatisfactory or Needs Improvement must have been observed by the principal and a qualified … The Rosewood Ctr., 86 Md.App. 366 , 586 A.2d 804 (1991). 11 In any event, it clearly indicates that Ms. Davis has, through counsel, waived any argument to the contrary. Ms.

Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

163 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2005

The latter was qualified as an expert in the field of “credit scores, credit reports, how the [credit] system works, how to read and interpret credit reports, Fair Credit Reporting Act issues, including consumers’ rights … As Spengler was clearly in default, the report by Sears was contractually permissible.

Purnell v. State

171 Md. App. 582 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 2006

It clearly was within the authority of the New Jersey Supreme Court to make that decision. … And the court finds that his testimony on all of those areas would be helpful in understanding the evidence in this case, and so I do find he’s qualified as an expert in those areas.

Town of Sykesville v. West Shore Communications, Inc.

110 Md. App. 300 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1996

Equitable Trust Co., supra, sets out the three necessary conditions for invoking successfully the vested rights doctrine, it is clear that the qualifying adverbial phrase “in good faith” modifies the verbal phrase “commences … Article 66B, § 4.07 sets out the power of the legislative body for a county to establish a board of appeals.

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.

240 Md. App. 664 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2019

But no enacted legislation clearly or expressly countered the Attorney General’s opinion that local regulation was not preempted. … The qualifier “pertinent” indicates that the General Assembly does not envision blanket uniformity.

Heit v. Stansbury

215 Md. App. 550 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2013

Stansbury had already received in urging the court not to grant a monetary award or attorneys’ fees, and the remand court clearly referenced those monies in determining what “would be equitable under the circumstances.” … The assignment power herein established shall be exercised to ensure full use of judicial personnel throughout the judicial system, to equalize, to the extent feasible, judicial workloads and to expedite the disposition of

State v. Polley

97 Md. App. 192 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1993

It is the purpose of this subheading to establish a uniform law controlling the ... distribution ... of controlled dangerous substances.... … Polley further alleges that because the conviction of January 31, 1992 postdates the instant offense of November 21, 1991, this conviction does not qualify as a predicate for enhanced sentencing purposes.

McKay v. State

90 Md. App. 204 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1992

Additionally, one’s subjective belief of imminent peril is best established by the accused. … State, 36 Md.App. 459, 467-68 , 374 A.2d 384 (1977) (where no causal connection between hot blood and provocation established); Fisher v.

Boyd v. Boyd

24 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1975

The reasons for this rule, which is definite and well established, would be interesting to discuss, but it would unnecessarily prolong this opinion to do more than state it, with some of the authorities by which it is fully … limitation by will of a future contingent interest in lands, contrary to the rules of limitations of contingent estates in conveyances at common law’ as ‘when the devisor parts with his whole estate, but, upon some contingency, qualifies

Jones v. Smith

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2025

Jones’s claims “are clearly barred by the three-year statute of limitations” in section 3 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (1974, 2020 … Smith argued that the alleged harm in this case was a “sole alleged tortious act of building a deck and addition/extension,” which would not qualify as a continuing harm. Mr. Jones opposed Ms. Smith’s motion.

Hogan v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2019

The Thompson opinion also established that although a trial judge might be able to answer the competency question without ordering an evaluation, it is clearly within the judge’s discretion to order such an evaluation. … Otherwise the word “error” would be enough, standing alone, without the qualifying requirement that such error be “plain.” (Emphasis in original).

City of Hyattsville v. Prince George's Cnty. Cncl.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2022

Council must establish one in the first instance. … Nevertheless, the Eisen parties have established at least one error in the decision to establish a maximum density for townhouses.

Hensen v. State

133 Md. App. 156 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2000

Qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, Trooper Rose testified that Eppig was driving between 102 and 120 miles per hour when he lost control of his car, and was traveling at 82 miles per hour when he struck Mrs … As Rivera was not a defense witness but a State’s witness, the prosecutor’s threat was clearly not intended to “directly intimidate or coerce a witness into silence,” a factor that the Court of Appeals, in Stanley , stressed