Case law

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.

Burkett v. State

98 Md. App. 459 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1993

He found: 1) that no act of fellatio had been established by the evidence and 2) that no act of eunnilingus had been established by the evidence. … The Court of Appeals explained, 323 Md. at 354-355, 593 A.2d 1060 : “Under the required evidence test, the § 36(a) weapon offense clearly would not merge into a third degree sexual offense based on § 464(a)(3).

Balt. Action Legal Team v. Off. of State's Atty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2021

The court read broadly the Court of Appeals’ holding in E.I. du Pont de Nemours, regarding what documents qualify as attorney work-product. … We concluded this was a First Amendment violation and that “[a] decision based on an unconstitutional consideration is clearly arbitrary and capricious.”

Himes Associates, Ltd. v. Anderson

178 Md. App. 504 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 29, 2008

Thus, the termination letter given to Anderson represented Paul Himes’s belief, prior to being told about the Agreement, that Anderson qualified for one *543 week’s pay, ie., that he was not being dismissed or released for … Accordingly, the trial court’s finding of an absence of a bonafide dispute was not clearly erroneous. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 1 .

Kilsheimer v. Davis

106 Md. App. 600 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1995

Should Maryland adopt the decisional analysis of federal courts establishing guidelines for determining the reasonableness of expert fees in litigation in Maryland? *604 2. … Concerning the court’s order regarding Staller’s fees, CCI clearly has standing to appeal as a party.

Carriage Hill Cabin John, Inc. v. Maryland Health Resources Planning Commission

125 Md. App. 183 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 1999

Clearly, such is not the case in the CHCJ project as it is currently constituted. (Footnote omitted). … This finding clearly undergirded the Commission’s decision.

Kaye v. Wilson-Gaskins

227 Md. App. 660 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2016

Additionally, Kaye filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that our prior opinion affirmatively established Wilson-Gaskins’s liability as the law of the case. … Accordingly, the covenant not to sue had the practical effect of providing an obligor with immunity against those seeking to enforce the underlying obligation,9 but the covenant did not actually discharge the underlying

Erb v. Maryland Department of Environment

110 Md. App. 246 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1996

general law, a law which hears before it condemns which proceeds not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities … This principle was clearly set forth by the Supreme Court in Lucas : Where the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use, we think it may resist compensation only if the logically

Ross v. State

59 Md. App. 251 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

Here, the evidence established not only that the victim was only fifteen years of age but also that he was intimidated by the appellant. … Upon the activation of that device with the tape so inserted, subject matter of a clearly pornographic nature was displayed. Clearly, this procedure constituted a valid consent search.

Evans v. Shore Communications, Inc.

112 Md. App. 284 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 27, 1996

towers in Talbot County, a list of previously granted special exceptions for towers and tower height variances, design drawings of the proposed tower, various letters from public agencies favoring the proposed tower, a qualified … The exhibit *291 clearly depicted the character of the neighborhood and showed the Village of Longwoods as well as the home of Respondent, Robert Evans.

County Commissioners for Carroll County v. Forty West Builders, Inc.

178 Md. App. 328 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2008

On that basis, the County clearly agreed .to “issue building permits for the subdivision.” … If ever there was a “deliberate engagement” between two parties, the CMCs qualify for that characterization. (Internal citations omitted.)

Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Lascola

31 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1976

Williams had a qualified privilege to act as she did and whether that privilege was abused. … We apply here the principles of law which the Court of Appeals held so clearly in Jacron and Piskor to be the law of Maryland. We attempt no amplification or further discussion.

Miller-Phoenix v. Bd. of School Comm'rs

246 Md. App. 286 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2020

App. 642, 653 (1984) (in recognizing the doctrine of constructive discharge in the context of wrongful terminations, stating that “it would defy both reason and fairness to immunize [an employer] from liability simply because … Miller-Phoenix argues that “he should be excused from exhaustion” because the Board “clearly repudiated the administrative process” and “rendered the administrative process inadequate” by not providing notice of his contract

Clark v. O'MALLEY

186 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2009

Clark’s due process claim, the court held that, even assuming that there had been a violation of due process, Mr. *215 Clark was not entitled to relief because the Mayor was entitled to qualified immunity. … The contractual provision here is not clearly illegal, and it does not violate public policy.

Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

79 Md. App. 422 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1989

The trial court’s decision as to the amount of damages was clearly erroneous based on the evidence and the law. III. … Martin never established to his satisfaction that he was actually entitled to $3,000 a week.

Fields v. State

96 Md. App. 722 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 1993

It is only the fifth of these special intents that will qualify under Oregon v. Kennedy to bar a retrial.” … It goes without saying that we cannot rule that he was clearly erroneous in that regard. Indeed, such a finding was well-nigh inevitable for a number of reasons.

Briggs v. State

90 Md. App. 60 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1992

Briggs’s remarks inside the dicing tent were constitutionally protected speech, and the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he violated the statute by means of his speech. … But we qualified this by indicating that “even if the initial stop of [an] appellant was illegal, his subsequent actions must still be examined to determine whether that conduct justified an arrest.”

State v. Smith

223 Md. App. 16 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2015

We will not disturb the factual findings of the post-conviction court unless they are clearly erroneous. Evans v. State, 151 Md. App. 365, 374 (2003); State v. … Under the facts of this case, there was no evidence of theft and the only qualifying crime of violence was the first-degree assault. See CL §14-101(a)(19).

Conway v. State

7 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 1969

*408 The court in McClelland concluded that the proper test to determine whether a statement given under such circumstances is admissible in evidence is whether the totality of the facts — the attendant circumstances — clearly … In his testimony appellant stated that he asked Trooper Taylor for a lawyer, but qualified his testimony by adding that he doubted whether the trooper heard him.

Estate of Click v. Estate of Click

204 Md. App. 349 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2012

Words of legal significance, though, “will be construed in that sense unless the will clearly indicates otherwise.” Pfeufer, 397 Md. at 649 , 919 A.2d 641 (quoting Emmert v. … Upon review, the Court of Appeals determined that “nothing on the face of the will [ ] qualifies or limits the bequest of personal property[,]” as there were “no examples in Paragraph Second of articles bequeathed by the