Case law

Eastern Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 494 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1999

The proposed sign is clearly in violation of the provisions of the Urban Renewal Ordinance for Mount Vernon. (Emphasis in original). … The mere invocation of Schultz's name cannot immunize the Board’s decision from reversal.

Collins v. Li

158 Md. App. 252 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 2004

Because Ryland is clearly seen as the deep pockets defendant, we would be hard-pressed to disagree with that characterization. 4 . … The court proceeded to the merits of the appeal because the lower court certified its summaiy judgment ruling as final after the stipulated motion to dismiss was qualified. [15] 15.

Hof v. State

97 Md. App. 242 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1993

We use the qualifier “presumptively” to hedge against the unlikely but theoretical possibility that a defendant might be able to establish that the federal voluntariness test includes some requirement not found in the Maryland … Clearly, Judge Jacobson did not abuse his discretion in taking the security measures he took in this case.

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

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 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.

Dustin v. Mayor of Rockville

23 Md. App. 389 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 1974

He had qualified as an expert in the courts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, and before the Mayor and Council of Rockville and other zoning bodies in cases involving zoning and planning. … Established as such in 1957, it retained that identity in the Master Plans adopted in 1960 and 1972.

Phoenix Services Ltd. Partnership v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

167 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2006

Beck was not qualified as the Independent Engineer, JHH could have said so before it signed the Agreement. … Pillar Construction, Inc., 388 Md. 675, 686-87 , 882 A.2d 288 (2005) (acknowledging that “parties have the option to waive *396 their right to arbitration,” but waiver “ ‘must be clearly established and will not be inferred

Gregory v. State

40 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1978

Dunn clearly establishes that principle. The question here is whether, notwithstanding the admissibility of the record generally under an exception to the hearsay rule, that part of it recording the opinions of Drs. … The Court did not explain what it meant by the qualifying phrase “to establish collateral facts”; but it does seem clear *318 that it was not excepting all documentary evidence from the strictures of the confrontation clause

Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atlantic, Inc.

149 Md. App. 336 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2003

Mercy created MPPI to establish a geographically-dispersed network of physicians. That network, Mercy hoped, would send patients to Mercy for treatment. … In contrast to the agreement in General Motors, the Guarantee is clearly labeled a “guarantee.”

In re: O.RG.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2025

First, this Court applies a clearly erroneous standard of review when scrutinizing factual findings; second, this Court applies a harmless error standard of review for matters of law; and third, this Court applies an abuse … Before a child can receive SIJ status, a child must first obtain a qualifying “SIJ- predicate order” from a state juvenile court. Simbaina, 221 Md. App. at 449-50 (quoting Perez-Olano v.

Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Inc.

170 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2006

Johns Hopkins filed an answer denying liability and pleading the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk, contributory negligence, statute of limitations, and charitable immunity. … Trial commenced on May 5, 2003, in the circuit court before the Honorable Allen Sehwait. 4 At that trial, the court refused to qualify Dr.

Campbell v. State

240 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2019

We recognized that “[t]his amount of time is not extensive, but it clearly is not inconsequential, and it falls within the time frame in which courts have reached conflicting results.” Id. … When, during voir dire, the State moved to exclude appellant’s family from the courtroom, defense counsel observed that “there’s clearly space at this point in the courtroom[.]”

Freedenburg v. Freedenburg

123 Md. App. 729 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1998

Was the trial judge clearly erroneous when he found that the conduct of Ms. Freedenburg alone was not the sole cause of the dissolution of the marriage? 2. … There was no direct testimony establishing such a *741 link. Ms. Freedenburg never testified that Dr.

Williams v. State

219 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2014

State, It is well established that Miranda warnings are not required in the absence of interrogation. … In support of this contention, appellant argues that he “clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent.”

Corman Marine Const. v. McGeady

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 2024

Section 905(b) of the Act was again amended in 1984, broadening a vessel’s immunity from negligence liability for certain classes of employees. Id. at 117. … The court, while noting that it had been interjecting in line with the previously established system, declined to provide an additional instruction outside the presence of the jury.

McMorrow v. King

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 2025

Thus, “[a]n award of attorney’s fees will not be reversed unless a court’s discretion was exercised arbitrarily or the judgment was clearly wrong.” Id. … Thus, the court’s discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, and its decision to deny an award of attorney’s fees was not clearly wrong.

A.H. Smith Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Maryland Department of Environment

116 Md. App. 233 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1997

This is precisely how violations were established. … That clearly is not what was contemplated by the Consent Order and permit.

Hersl v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System

188 Md. App. 249 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2009

Well-established in Maryland law is the principle that a layperson is not qualified to render an expert opinion on a complex medical question. See Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. … Ribicoff, 298 F.2d 850 (4th Cir.1962): “The objective medical findings may show more or less clearly the existence of certain clinically determinable physical or mental impairments.

Whiting-Turner Contracting v. Comm'r of Labor & Ind.

237 Md. App. 24 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2018

The ALJ stated, however, that the opinions expressed in the report were “not qualified expert opinions. … Bruns did not order 18 The ALJ referred to gooser braces in this part of the discussion, but in context, she clearly was discussing spacer beams.

Goldstein v. Miles

159 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 2004

Those are things that were clearly essential elements of the deal. … The Associates most clearly answered this contention at a hearing before the circuit court: This isn’t a contract case.

Rich v. State

230 Md. App. 537 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2016

Rich’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact, and we will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. … Rich contends that this plea colloquy is deficient because the court did not establish on the record the elements of the second count, conspiracy to distribute marijuana.