Case law

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.”

Charity v. State

132 Md. App. 598 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2000

State, 355 Md. 356 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999), squarely establishes one such scope limitation. … In Ferris , there was a clearly demarcated sequence.

State v. Greene

240 Md. App. 119 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2019

N.Y.S.2d 535 (1996), the New York Appellate Division held that the use of a single photograph, albeit otherwise suggestive, had no such adverse effect in circumstances where the suspect and the identifying witness had established … Being at a critical stage would qualify an “accused” for Sixth Amendment assistance, but if you are not yet “accused” even a critical stage would not help.

Maryland Real Estate Commission v. Garceau

234 Md. App. 324 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2017

The 1975 Declaration, signed by Leo Umerly and notarized, did not establish an HOA. … Clearly there was no opportunity for Ms.

Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Quinn

91 Md. App. 375 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1992

As there is no issue as to improper service presented herein, Rule 2-432 clearly applies under these facts. … But when considering, as we are here, the loss of food, kitchen utensils, clothing, and children's stuffed animals, the appellees are well qualified to render an opinion as to their fair market value.

Davis v. Stapf

224 Md. App. 393 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2015

clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons and not merely for the public as a whole.” ... … Given that the General Assembly has determined these persons to be “incompetent to handle the affects of alcohol,” Congini, 470 A.2d at 517 , it could be argued that persons *425 under 21 do not qualify as “ordinary able

Crampton v. State

71 Md. App. 375 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1987

Thompson, like Crampton, contended that the traffic citation charging him with “driving while ability impaired or intoxicated” recited two separate potential charges in a single count and was “clearly duplici *385 tious.” … One seeking to introduce expert opinion based on a new method of scientific investigation must first establish that the new technique has gained the general acceptance of the relevant scientific community. Reed v.

Clark v. O'MALLEY

169 Md. App. 408 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2006

The Mayor again moved for summary judgment on February 10, 2005, asserting that admissible evidence clearly established that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to notice. … Cherkes, 140 Md.App. 282 , 780 A.2d 410 (2001), this Court determined that the Baltimore City Police Department enjoys State sovereign immunity from tort liability.

Smith v. State

41 Md. App. 277 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 1979

To establish murder it is initially necessary to establish homicide — the killing of one human being by another. … This represents, quite clearly, the directing of a dangerous and deadly weapon at a vital part of the human anatomy. It is well established that this gives rise to a permitted inference of the intent to kill.

Coates v. Charles Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2025

immunity for actions which are legislative in nature.”). 10 The Board had the administrative authority to vote on and adopt the PRA. … elected officials and high-level officers working closely with them to conduct their official duties: [T]he term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office . . . by the qualified

Choate v. State

214 Md. App. 118 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2013

We cannot say that the acting administrative judge clearly abused his discretion. … This testimony was not clearly within the scope of the appellant’s continuing objection.

Pair v. State

202 Md. App. 617 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2011

When a sentencing judge imposes multiple sentences where it is established, as a matter of law, that the Legislature intended that multiple sentences not be imposed, that legislatively prohibited sentence is also an “illegal … If not, it would not qualify for Rule 4-345(a)’s procedural dispensations.

State v. Cabral

159 Md. App. 354 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2004

If a trained drug dog alerts on a vehicle, that ipso facto establishes probable cause which will authorize a warrant-less search of that vehicle. … Thus, the trial court clearly erred when it ruled that Bruno’s alert did not amount to probable cause to search the vehicle.

Rich v. State

205 Md. App. 227 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2012

Sergeant Ronald Crouch, also of the State Police and assigned to the Caroline County Drug Task Force, was qualified as an expert in the illegal drug trade and testified that the text messages on appellant’s phone were “consistent … Clearly, if the Legislature disagrees with this interpretation, it has the power to amend the statute.

Wassif v. Wassif

77 Md. App. 750 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1989

She does not have much education beyond high school and does not have any skill which would qualify her for more than a modest-paying job. … establish that he provided more for the support of such child during the calendar year than the parent not having custody.”

In re Appeal No. 1258

32 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1976

The first series, involving a commercial establishment, was committed at night. It was not certain whether the second series was committed during the day or at night, but it involved a dwelling house. … We cannot say that the court was clearly erroneous in his judgment on the evidence before it. Rule 1086.

Johnson v. Spireon, Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2025

However, Johnson incorrectly assumes that such an order immunized him from a later finding of bad faith regarding subsequent filings. See, e.g., Johnson, 84 Md. … Supp. 354, 371–72 (D.D.C. 1983) (establishing the Laffey matrix). The U.S.

Randall v. State

223 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2015

“We perform a de novo constitutional appraisal in light of the particular facts of the case at hand; in so doing, we accept a lower court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” … We are not persuaded that the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or that the State’s actions were legally insufficient to satisfy the State’s obligation to procure Appellant with “reasonable diligence” based

Albrecht v. State

105 Md. App. 45 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1995

State, we made significant reference to the fact that the risk of death or serious bodily harm must be not only “substantial” but also “unjustified”: Actually, to qualify a defendant as “reckless,” it is necessary that the … She clearly did not possess a weapon.