Case law

Stathes v. State

29 Md. App. 474 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1975

Jackson, supra, the Court clearly and succinctly stated the rule we apply to the subject case when it said at 689: “An act denounced as a crime by both federal and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity … Kline, has been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony in this case. This is proper for the prosecution to do, and this is a recognized use in the means of law enforcement.

Smalls v. Maryland State Department of Education

226 Md. App. 224 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2015

What was proved with respect to the appellant, however, was sufficient to establish that he lacked the required training to qualify for child care certification: "I find that the Appellant's submission of fraudulent … hearing and the motivation for the antecedent examination of the authenticity of -25- the appellant's documents offered in support of his initial application for certification was clearly

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.

Patrick v. State

90 Md. App. 475 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1992

State, 21 Md.App. 412, 427 , 320 A.2d 66 (1974) (“If jury instructions when read as a whole, clearly set forth the applicable law, there is no reversible error.”). See also State v. … Patrick did not object, and the court qualified DuBey as an expert in her field. On the witness stand, DuBey told the jury about the evidence she tested, the tests she used, and the results of those tests.

Burks v. Allen

238 Md. App. 418 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2018

by an expert who was not qualified in the field of Down syndrome. … Ischemic colitis is a well-recognized and established medical condition with a clearly defined reason behind it: reduced or absent blood flow that deprives cells in the colon of oxygen, damaging the tissue.

Eastern Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

146 Md. App. 283 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2002

Zeigler [ 330 Md. 540 , 625 A.2d 914 (1993) ] clearly would have permitted it to reopen the record before issuing its first final decision, even after beginning deliberations. … observe that the Court concluded in Eastern I that “the Board made no factual findings and offered no valid legal conclusions with regard to the denial of the application____ The mere invocation of Schultz’s name cannot immunize

Dixon v. State

133 Md. App. 654 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2000

Consequently, the search of appellant’s trunk did not qualify as a lawful search incident to arrest. … Again, that generality did not help establish the informant’s track record.

In the Matter of Jacobson

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2022

Accordingly, once a confidential relationship is established, the plaintiff need not even show the actual exercise of undue influence. Id. … Arey, we clarified that the grant of leave to amend, as clearly contemplated by Rule 2-322(c), functions as a precondition to filing an amended complaint. 203 Md. App. 606, 670-71 (2012).

In the Matter of Jacobson

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 2022

Accordingly, once a confidential relationship is established, the plaintiff need not even show the actual exercise of undue influence. Id. … Arey, we clarified that the grant of leave to amend, as clearly contemplated by Rule 2-322(c), functions as a precondition to filing an amended complaint. 203 Md. App. 606, 670-71 (2012).

Fone v. State

233 Md. App. 88 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2017

App. at 90 (“In analyzing the issue of staleness, ‘the expertise and experience of the officer are to be taken into account in applying the Fourth Amendment probable cause test,’ even if ‘the officer would not qualify … The court found that the State had provided the report, and we cannot say that that finding was clearly erroneous.

Barkley v. State

219 Md. App. 137 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 2014

THE DEFENDANT: So I can't establish the fact of what he said. You're not going to allow the establishment to show that he perjured. … Hardy, clearly came after meaningful trial proceedings had begun.

Bliss v. Wiatrowski

125 Md. App. 258 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1999

Wiatrowski’s letter qualified as a motion to vacate under the rule. The issue left unresolved is whether the court could consider Allstate’s motion in making its determination. … Clearly, there was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Ms. Bliss assumed the risk of the danger in riding with Mr. Wiatrowski. IV.

Cruz v. Silva

189 Md. App. 196 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2009

McAlear, 298 Md. at 346 , 469 A.2d 1256 , stated: The 1980 Alimony Act was passed for the purpose “of defining, consolidating and establishing the law with respect to alimony; establishing uniform procedures for enforcing … Caccamise, 130 Md.App. 505, 514 , 747 A.2d 221 (2000), put it: Clearly a trial court, in the exercise of its judgment, after considering the factors listed in Md.Code, Fam.

Malik v. State

152 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2003

A murder trial for the death of five women clearly was going to cause a great deal of emotion, and the most that the court could do would be minimize it. … The first step is to determine whether the offense qualifies as a lesser included offense of the greater offense. Id. at 721-22 , 709 A.2d 1255 .

Hurley v. State

60 Md. App. 539 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 16, 1984

Rodger Frankel, an attorney who qualified as an expert on bankruptcy, testified that appellant’s budget proposal 1 which made no provision for mortgage, alimony or child support payments was unrealistic and not likely to … indicated that there was but one circumstance where he could convict without production of a body, i.e., “... where if there were some witnesses who said, ‘Yes, I saw him pull the trigger or stick the knife in or something.’ ” Clearly

Martin-Dorm v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2023

We can establish the stabbing as having occurred at just a minute or two before the 12:54 A.M. call to the police reporting a possible stabbing. … A judge is not required to pass an academic qualifying test on a subject before exercising discretion with respect to that subject.

Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board

163 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2005

concludes from the record taken as a whole that applicant’s insistence that he lives in fear of criminal retaliation is merely a convenient, after-the-fact justification, in an effort to take advantage of a circumstance that clearly … If a law abiding citizen is qualified to own a gun, transport it to his business, take it to target practice, and take it to these other activities, all without a permit, then it is arbitrary and unreasonable for the Handgun

Wilson v. State

176 Md. App. 7 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2007

During the trial, he claimed that his arrest was illegal and moved to suppress “anything that subsequently flowed from” that arrest, including the very testimony presented establishing his guilt of assault, resisting arrest … The government’s interest in protecting both appellant and the public clearly outweighed his interest in being free from arbitrary governmental interference.

Dept. of Health v. Best

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2024

established in order to be meaningful.” … MDH employees testified that both Best and Okechukwu were qualified to work at Perkins which they set out as a permissible reason for the employee exchange.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Gianotti

148 Md. App. 457 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 2002

After a two and one-half week trial, counsel for the Gianottis, in closing argument, made the following remarks: Ask yourselves if he [expert called by the defendants] is qualified, first of all, to render that opinion, and … Cross-appellants claim that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in finding that they had settled their claim with B & W.