Case law

Wildewood Operations v. WRV Holdings

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2023

Wildewood Operating also informed First Indemnity that Wildewood Operating had sold the property to Wildewood Owner; Wildewood Operating had entered into the Work Agreement; Wildewood Operating had established a letter … “The form was developed to define clearly the scope and extent of the surety’s liability, the ‘trigger’ of the surety’s obligation to perform, the options available to the surety in satisfying its bond obligations, and

Priester v. Board of Appeals

233 Md. App. 514 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2017

On that basis, the ALJ concluded that Captain Priester’s service as a captain, from 1999 until the date of his termination in 2013, did not qualify as “creditable service.” … But because a member can earn pension benefits only through the requisite number of years of “membership service,” which is defined as “honorable and faithful service,” the statute clearly conditions the right to benefits

State v. Graham

233 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2017

Accordingly, it is undisputed that Rule 4-262 qualifies as a mandatory rule. 9 Maryland Rule 1-201(a) provides: (a) General. … As for the first factor, “the reasons why the disclosure was not made,” the State clearly failed in its duty to timely disclose the information at issue.

McCallister v. McCallister

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 2014

Wills, 390 Md. 726 (2006) (rejecting the contention that BIAs have immunity from civil suit). … He claims to have wanted to counter his ex-wife’s testimony that he failed to attend Ian’s fifth-grade graduation in May 2012 by establishing that he was prohibited from attending by the temporary protective order that she

McKinney v. State

239 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 2018

If he means, as he clearly seems to say, that one cannot commit an act (the act that is the violation) at a time that has not yet come to pass, he is simply stating a truism. A tautology! … Even assuming, arguendo, every word of that proposition to be true, it would classically, under well-established Rule 4–345(a) principles, be a mere procedural illegality that would not be an inherent illegality in the

Rosebrock v. Eastern Shore Emergency Physicians, LLC

221 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2015

Appellees cited to “well-established agency law principles,” which provide that “an attorney has no authority to act for a client who has died.” … Clearly, the expert opinions of Dr. Smith and Dr. Van Rooyen were based on the deposition of Dr. Davis. At trial, Dr.

Furda v. State

194 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2010

He insists that the Potomac Ridge records “were critical ... because they clearly showed that Mr. … In denying the motion, the court said: “[T]he documents in issue do not qualify as newly discovered evidence.... Here, every single thing I’ve been shown existed at the time of trial.

S.B. v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services

195 Md. App. 287 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2010

Sims, who “was not qualified as an expert in child abuse investigations.” … This is the only notice required by law, and it clearly contemplates notice being complete when the ALJ’s decision is mailed.

John O. v. Jane O.

90 Md. App. 406 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1992

O. sought a different valuation, it was his burden to establish one. Mr. … We hold the court’s findings with respect to overnight visitation were far from clearly erroneous. Mr.

Diggs v. State

213 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2013

The second round was a series of seven to ten “very loud gunshots” that “were clearly outdoors.” … State, 385 Md. 706, 870 A.2d 609 (2005) (the law in Maryland no longer permits opinion testimony based on a witness’s specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, unless they are qualified as an expert

Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, LLC

201 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 2011

The court concluded that Troxel’s claim was “clearly an attempt to assert ‘Dram Shop’ liability and no such duty of ‘Dram Shop’ liability exists under Maryland law.” … Fred Del Marva, an expert witness retained by Troxel, submitted an affidavit stating that he was professionally qualified to comment on the industry standards of care in serving alcoholic beverages to customers at nightclubs

Gantt v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

So I need to know – I can’t qualify you as an expert. … If, arguendo, this Batson issue were before us on the merits, we would defer to the not clearly erroneous factfinding of Judge Abrams.

Reed v. State

35 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1977

The Sergeant has qualified in six or seven states as an expert on voice identification and has never been rejected as an expert in the field by a court. 8 . … They were of the opinion, in essence, that the spectrograph has not, as yet, established its reliability for use in evidence.

Larocca v. State

164 Md. App. 460 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2005

Yet, he claimed to remember clearly that the appellant did not know of the presence of the bag of marijuana in the car. … We give deference to the motion judge’s non-clearly erroneous first-level factual findings and determinations of witness credibility. Wallace v.

Churchfield v. State

137 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2001

I don’t see there’s any reason why it couldn’t be said that he was arguing with Christina, I don’t know if there’s some way to qualify what they were arguing and I think she would admit that they had a very bad relationship … We disagree, and we hold that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.

Gabaldoni v. BOARD OF PHYSICIANS QUALITY ASSURANCE

141 Md. App. 259 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2001

The ALJ opined that, although the Board did establish that Dr. … The standard of care requires that later additions be dated as to when made, and clearly shown as later additions. Dr.

Brown v. Contemporary OB/GYN Associates

143 Md. App. 199 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2002

So, there are a number of ways they are done. *252 Any testimony that qualifies, that is has been taken under oath and when both sides have an opportunity to be present and ask questions — qualifies for use at the trial. … At the trial in March 2000, no evidence was presented to establish that Dr. Donald Levitt acted intentionally in decapitating the baby.

Taneja v. State

231 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2016

The State advised the court that Singh would not be granted immunity from prosecution, but that he would not be prosecuted because, in the State’s view, “I think he might have been told about the crime afterwards, but … Singh and establish that he had motive. That he had this grudge against Preeta Gabba which went back to 2010, 2011 as evidenced by this lawsuit.

Greenfield v. Heckenbach

144 Md. App. 108 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2002

THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE AS IT RELATES TO COUNT I—THE FRAUD COUNT “The legal principles which govern here are well established in Maryland. As long ago as 1869, Judge Miller, speaking for the Court, said in Bladen v. … Plaintiffs contend the agreement clearly reflects defendant knowingly opted to rent the model 1100 which it obtained and nothing in the lease indicates defendant hoped to obtain the purported higher quality model 6500 machine

Cicoria v. State

89 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1992

Section 26-8 states that each candidate for nomination for, or election to, public or party office, upon or before, and as a condition precedent to qualifying as [a] candidate, shall appoint one campaign treasurer and shall … ‘“Authorized candidate campaign committee’ means a political committee established under § 26-4 of this article and authorized by a candidate to promote his candidacy.” Id. § 1 — 1(a)(1).