Case law

Owens Corning v. Bauman

125 Md. App. 454 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1999

While appellant and amicus Maryland Defense Counsel make much of the clearly expressed purposes as recounted in Murphy v. … Such a finding was not clearly erroneous because there is evidence in the record to support it. Grimshaw, 115 Md.App. at 165 , 692 A.2d 5 .

Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council, Inc. v. Maryland Public Service Commission

227 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

MEAP, a program established under the purview of the Department of Human Services, makes payments on behalf of low-income households to defray fuel and utility costs. See Md. … Observing that there were “no further conditions that must be met” to qualify for the permit other than payment of the fee, the Court concluded that the principal purpose of the fee was not to regulate development.

Belton & Worsley v. State

253 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 2021

In this particular encounter on South Monroe Street, by contrast, how could the Mother possibly qualify for the defensive assistance of the Son, or of anyone? … As the Court of Appeals held clearly in Hobby v.

Blue Bird Cab Co. v. Amalgamated Casualty Insurance

109 Md. App. 378 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1996

Blue Bird asserts that exclusion (g) is “clearly ambiguous” because it is not “clear if this exclusion applies to both the named insured, as well as the driver operator.” … In that case, the Court of Appeals held that Maryland Code (1957, 1994 Repl.VoL), Art. 48A, § 538(b) clearly and unambiguously exempts taxicabs from carrying UM insurance.

DEINLEIN v. Johnson

201 Md. App. 373 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2011

The canons of statutory interpretation are well established. … We hold that the legislative history clearly precludes appellant from recovering extraordinary attorney’s fees under T.P. § 14—843(a)(4)(H) in this case.

State v. Phillips

210 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2013

Statutes reviewed pursuant to this level of scrutiny are presumed constitutional, “and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly arbitrary.” … Accordingly, we hold that appellee has not met his burden of establishing that the Act violates the guarantees of equal protection under the law. IV.

James B. Nutter & Co. v. Black

225 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2015

Id. at 24. 11 A guardian is qualified when he or she posts the bond required by the court. … Of course, if the deed is executed after an adjudication of insanity, it is clearly void rather than only voidable.” (citation omitted)); Tomlins v.

Lemley v. Lemley

102 Md. App. 266 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 1994

Ellis, 19 Md.App. 361, 365 , 311 A.2d 428 (1973): Litigants in a custody proceeding, as in all judicial proceedings, are entitled to have their cause determined ultimately by a duly qualified judge in a court of competent … At the time the Whit-more property was sold, clearly some of the proceeds were marital property and some were not.

Black & Decker Corp. v. Humbert

189 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2009

Appellant’s “salient fact” argument is in no way persuasive in light of the fact that the Bobbitt Court clearly stated that even if the arthritis did contribute to Bobbitt’s condition it still would have been compensable … Specifically, Appellee presented no evidence by a qualified expert in this regard. The only expert presented by Appellee was a medical expert, Dr. Wittstadt.

Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery County

184 Md. App. 572 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2009

The plan also states that water and sewer service decisions should comply with the guidelines established in the master plan. … All the Council needed was a rational, legal basis for denying the request, which it clearly had.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Two Farms, Inc.

234 Md. App. 674 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2017

At common law, a violation of CL § 10-107 probably would not have been a crime of moral turpitude, although it might qualify under the more liberal interpretation we have given to “moral turpitude” in licensing statutes. … To conclude otherwise would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result that the holder of a retail license is immune from administrative sanction for harmful conduct, despite the Legislature’s efforts to tie both together

Franklin v. State

33 Md. App. 690 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1976

LEWIS: Your Honor - THE COURT: I’ll let you qualify at this point of time, not qualify as to whether it’s custodial interrogation or not. MR. LEWIS: To avoid the problem, we will withdraw the question at this time. … App. 319 That simple statement, in our view, clearly enunciates a principle that is not only applicable to the case at hand, but to all Harris cases. Judgment reversed: case remanded for new trial.

State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. Glick

47 Md. App. 150 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1980

The Department then applied the statute’s eligibility formula and ruled that appellees did not qualify for a property tax credit. 2 Appellees appealed the County Finance Department’s ruling to the Property Tax Assessment … Davis Coal and Coke Co., 197 Md. 52 (1951) (administrative finding based upon erroneous conception of law "clearly reviewable”); and Brown v. Md. Unemp. Comp.

Young v. Anne Arundel County

146 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2002

She contended that she was qualified for the pension in three ways: as spouse, as beneficiary, and as joint annuitant. … Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment.

State v. Henry

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 2022

The narrow exceptions to the doctrine are when “(1) the prior decision is ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles’ or (2) the precedent has been ‘superseded by significant changes in the law.’” … “[E]xpress consent” is “[c]onsent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.” Express Consent, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

P Overlook, LLLP v. Board of County Commissioners

183 Md. App. 233 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2008

About ten months later, after public hearings, the Commissioners adopted the CRRA Report, thereby establishing the RV zone (and others). … The Comprehensive Plan, in 2002, clearly reflected the intention of the County to implement an RV zoning classification.

Freeman v. State

158 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2004

So I think those clearly should be suppressed. At the end of her discussions with Sergeant Patón what she clearly indicated is that I do not want to talk about it right now. … State, 49 Md.App. 586 , 433 A.2d 1234 (1981), establishes that, even if appellant’s silence was an invocation, further questioning was not forever barred.

Capital Raceway Promotions, Inc. v. Smith

22 Md. App. 224 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 1974

The court reasoned erroneously that, because he was qualified to testify on direct as an expert, the portion of the statement encompassing the subject of his expertise was admissible. … Maryland has never established standards to be followed by classes of drivers on the basis of their experience with motor vehicles.

Lipitz v. Hurwitz

207 Md. App. 206 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2012

Does Hurwitz qualify as a “member of the public” under Md.Code Ann. Real Peop. (“RP”) § 11B-106? 2. … He relies on a statute that very clearly governs the facts of this case.

Griffin v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

In its memorandum opinion, the circuit court denied appellant’s petition, finding that he failed to establish that he was suffering significant collateral consequences, and that pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, … determining whether the ultimate disposition of the coram nobis court constitutes an abuse of discretion, appellate courts should not disturb the coram nobis court’s factual findings unless they are clearly