Case law

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.

Md. Dept. of Health v. Boulden

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 2025

The court then found that the record and testimony clearly established that the Department failed to admit Mr. Boulden within ten days of commitment order, and sanctions were appropriate. … The Department established grant funding and expanded the number of beds in the assisted living sector, adding 25 beds in 2023.

Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. VNA Hospice

176 Md. App. 475 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2007

It contends that anti-competitive regulatory schemes are “immunized from antitrust scrutiny” and are “ipso facto ... exempt from the operation of antitrust laws.” … “A statute enacted by the Legislature in the exercise of the police power ‘is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity.’ ” Governor of Md.

Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance

37 Md. App. 706 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1977

Rooney, 406 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1966) (power to issue 30-day binder held not sufficient to qualify soliciting agent as a general agent for purposes of accepting service of process). … In the case sub judies the facts clearly establish a lack of any express authorization or direction by Mutual Fire to Evander to prepare and distribute written advertising material of any type.

Frankel v. Frankel

165 Md. App. 553 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2005

Clearly the children were not in private school during the summer, but they recommenced private school in the fall. … From our *588 review of the record, we are persuaded that Judge Sundt neither erred nor abused her discretion in establishing the amount of Stanley’s child support obligation.

Moshyedi v. Council of Unit Owners of Annapolis Road Medical Center Condominium

132 Md. App. 184 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2000

Although we recognize that Kann addressed an express trust relating to a decedent’s estate, which clearly is equitable in nature, the issues the court was required to resolve in the instant case are equally equitable in nature … B Pellucidly, the By-Laws place a duty on the Board to provide payment for reconstruction or repair of qualifying damage to any units.

Montgomery v. Remsburg

147 Md. App. 564 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2002

To qualify for a hunting license, hunters must “produc[e] a certificate of competency” in firearms and hunting safety. See NR § 10 — 301.1(a)(l)(ii). … Non-compliance with summary judgment rules does not require judgment in favor of a party who clearly is not entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See Dudley v.

Williams v. State

231 Md. App. 156 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2016

According to the sergeant, appellant did as he was instructed, except he did not spread his buttocks so the sergeant could see appellant’s anus clearly. … We need not address this fourth category because this is clearly not a “reach-in” case. 13 Cf.

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v. Nave

129 Md. App. 90 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1999

Jones, who was also qualified as an expert in the design and function of steering wheel assemblies, admitted that he had never designed or tested a steering column. … Q My opinion is that there were clearly identified alternative designs....

Department of Human Resources v. Howard

168 Md. App. 621 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 18, 2006

If, on the other hand, “A” was not set in motion with the intention of striking “B,” then Taylor establishes that nothing short of recklessness will suffice to establish equivalent blameworthiness. … Taylor’s use of the phrase “unintended consequences” clearly contemplates “B,” and not “C,” as the unintended consequence.

Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green

242 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

We look first to the plain language of the statute and decide what parts, if any, are “ambiguous or not clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose.” Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 495 (2015). … To the contrary, 14 the facts to which the Bloods stipulated in the circuit court establish that the Association sought here to enforce a limitation consistently.

Jabbi v. Adventist Healthcare

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 2025

To admit such evidence, the trial court must determine three things: 1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, 2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony … “The human body is complex, etiology is often uncertain, and ethical concerns often prevent double-blind studies calculated to establish statistical proof.”

Keene Corp. v. Hall

96 Md. App. 644 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1993

They clearly were not. As Chief Judge Wilner recently noted in another civil case in which counsel used improper argument, it is “wholly inappropriate to accuse [the defendant] of ‘theft,’ or ‘stealing,’ or ‘robbery.’ … that indicates that the Court of Appeals is considering such a move — in order to be admissible scientific evidence still would have to be reliable, i.e., “a demonstrable, objective procedure for reaching the opinion and qualified

Heartwood 88, Inc. v. Montgomery County

156 Md. App. 333 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 2004

And, the plain language of T.P. § 14-848 establishes that, because the court did not declare void the sales of the 331 properties (and had no grounds to do so), appellant did not qualify for the remedies provided in T.P. … Indeed, the County’s Certificate of Tax Sale clearly distinguishes between interest and penalties.

Icgoren v. State

103 Md. App. 407 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1995

The rule of these cases, which dealt with the Double Jeopardy Clause, has been thought wise because it protects the societal interest in *430 trying people ... rather than granting them immunization because of legal error … This issue is not, therefore, clearly preserved for appeal. Md.Rule 8-131, Md.Rule 2-517(e).

Baltimore Sun v. Thanos

92 Md. App. 227 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 1992

The State, to which we granted the right to intervene before us, asserts that the public has only a qualified right to inspect and copy a presentence report, and that this case should be remanded so that the circuit court … Both the state and federal schemes, however, clearly serve the same important interests. Compare Huffington v.

Frobouck v. State

212 Md. App. 262 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2013

When conflicting evidence is presented, we accept the facts as found by the hearing judge unless it is shown that his findings are clearly erroneous. … “It is well established ... that a valid consent to search may be oral.” Manzi v. State, 56 S.W.3d 710, 719 (Tex.App.2001); see also Rowe v.

Paige v. State

226 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2015

The circuit court then concluded as follows: So, clearly, you have custody, but it’s not police custody. It’s Macy’s custody. … Thus, we conclude that the motions court was not clearly erroneous in ruling that Salley and the other Macy’s employees were not agents of the State.

Lee v. Lee

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2019

on the Judiciary website in June and July of 2016— failed to establish clearly when the clerk added the “Denied” notation to the entry.4 Explaining why that issue is significant requires an exploration of the Court of … In other words, where a money judgment establishes a debt, a lien is a mechanism that can be used to enforce it. A. Mr. Bok Lee’s 2004 Filing Established a Lien, Not a Judgment. Mr.

State v. Armstead

235 Md. App. 392 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2018

We 10  will not disturb the factual findings of the post-conviction court unless they are clearly erroneous. … On request of any party, the judge shall direct the clerk to call the role of the array and to request each qualified juror to stand and be identified when called.