Case law

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.

Baltimore County v. Aecom Services, Inc.

200 Md. App. 380 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2011

Although we acknowledged in Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. that equitable estoppel may apply against municipalities, we qualified this statement, explaining: “[Ejquitable estoppel is not applicable when the limited authority … Clearly, Parex has consistently denied liability for any portion of the damages.

Stachowski v. State

213 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2013

Clearly, then, restitution is punishment for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted. … The General Assembly has required a direct result between the qualifying crime committed and the damages inflicted before restitution may be ordered.

Rosenberg v. State

129 Md. App. 221 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1999

The testimony was not elicited for the purpose of establishing probable cause to arrest appellant. … “The rule in Maryland is that a lay witness is not qualified to express an opinion about matters which are either within the scope of common knowledge and experience of the jury or which are peculiarly within the specialized

Transamerica Insurance v. Brohawn

23 Md. App. 186 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 1974

It is a convenience, to avoid unnecessary litigation but never intended to reverse established rights, substantive or procedural. … The issue was whether or not Glens Falls was estopped from denying coverage having declined to attempt the declaratory judgment route, and the answer was clearly in the negative.

Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County

232 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2017

The United States Supreme Court established the “rough proportionality” test in Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391. … A legislative body is authorized to “amend, qualify, or repeal any of its laws, affecting all persons and property which have not acquired rights vested under existing law.” Dal Maso v. Bd. of Cty.

State v. Fabien

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2023

Proc. § 5-526 (‘common-law privileges or immunities’); Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 4-301 (‘common-law or statutory misdemeanor’); Com. … Law § 11-1207 (‘common law or statutory defense or immunity’).” 31  2.

Loh v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

47 Md. App. 110 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1980

The Court of Appeals, per Judge Urner, wrote, 113 Md. at 117 : "The plaintiffs expression of dissatisfaction with the defendant’s proposal could not qualify the effect of his actual use of the check and appropriation of the … Clearly, something short of an actual judgment will suffice; we think it equally clear that a denial of liability will not.”

Schreiber v. Cherry Hill Construction Co.

105 Md. App. 462 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1995

When Benton’s vehicle struck Schreiber, Schreiber was within the safety zone established by Trooper Truitt. … Clearly, a motion in limine is not the equivalent of a continuing objection.... There is no equivalent to a continuing objection.

Barr v. Barr

58 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1984

Barr, despite her clearly understood overtures, was not constructive desertion because he did not “intend” that it terminate the marriage. … That subsection states that: “Upon the termination of an order issued under this section of the family home or family use personal property, the property shall be treated as marital property if it so qualifies, and the court

Nicholson v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 2018

We, therefore, decline to depart from the general rule, clearly stated in Sutton, that self-defense is not a defense to felony murder. … The State’s criminal indictment against Nicholson clearly satisfies the requirements of Crim.

Williams v. State

152 Md. App. 200 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2003

Scientific evidence established that the cartridge casings found at the crime scene did not have appellant’s fingerprints on them. … In this case, Assistant State’s Attorney Stewart was clearly aware of Williams’s past criminal record, and she disclosed that record to appellant’s trial counsel.

Kirgan v. Parks

60 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1984

-28 , 420 A.2d 1285 , although the facts in Prescott were unusual, the case represented a modest relaxation of the strict privity requirement, limited to actions based upon contract and *9 only in favor of one who would qualify … The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh counts of the amended declaration clearly asserted entirely new and different causes of action than those contained in the original declaration.

Bryant v. State

129 Md. App. 150 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1999

Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 802 (Fla.1986) (comments on a defendant’s demeanor off the witness stand clearly improper); Blue v. … The Court stated: *162 We conclude that when an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt

Ruden v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

99 Md. App. 605 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1994

The full burden was placed on the debtor to establish the fair market value of the collateral. … What also clearly emerged from Harris v. Bower is that the creditor, Bower, notwithstanding his commercial unreasonableness, was not absolutely barred from obtaining a deficiency judgment.

Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc.

88 Md. App. 672 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1991

Siver to be qualified as an expert in insurance matters, and there was evidence to support that finding. He said that he was familiar with custom and usage in the industry. … The $40 million award against A & A and Scheeler clearly was not within that request.

Griggs v. Evans

205 Md. App. 64 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2012

Of particular relevance here was this query: Have you been diagnosed by a member of the medical profession as having (1) high blood pressure, (2) cancer or tumor, (3) AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) or an ARC ( … But, to establish that it had such a legitimate interest, ARC relied on the terms of its consulting agreement with CTI. Id. at 94.

Lampton v. LaHood

94 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1993

Indeed, Maryland provides, as many states do not, that the “written statement” be “verified.” 3 This is clearly an indication that the General Assembly did not contemplate that oral statements of claims could satisfy the … Lampton relies upon two statutes, Est. & Trusts Art. §§ 7-101(a) and 8-109(a), as establishing LaHood’s personal liability to her.

Department of Housing & Community Development v. Mullen

165 Md. App. 624 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2005

This doctrine had long been established in the Roman law upon the principles of natural justice. … Third, even if this were a suit for the return of money, under the circumstances of this case, it clearly was not inequitable for the appellants to seek enforcement of their contractual rights.

Paige v. State

222 Md. App. 190 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2015

As the Court of Appeals has long recognized, “[a]lmost anyone can make a slip of the tongue, and judges are not immune from such errors.” Reed v. State, 225 Md. 566, 570 (1961). … It is well established, however, that counsel is not permitted to “comment on facts not in evidence or . . . state what he or she would have proven.” Mitchell v. State, 408 Md. 368, 381 (2009); see also Bernady v.