Case law

Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2023

The court’s holding, therefore, added a qualifier to the parties’ clear oral agreement—i.e., to give each pre-embryo a chance at life, no matter what, except in the event of divorce—to which Jocelyn and Joshua never actually … These hypotheticals fail to take into account clearly established public policy. Cf. Dingle v.

Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2023

The court’s holding, therefore, added a qualifier to the parties’ clear oral agreement—i.e., to give each pre-embryo a chance at life, no matter what, except in the event of divorce—to which Jocelyn and Joshua never actually … These hypotheticals fail to take into account clearly established public policy. Cf. Dingle v.

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Hallowell

94 Md. App. 444 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1993

Section 5-102(b) provides that “a person may not qualify as or exercise the powers *453 and duties of a personal representative unless he has been appointed administratively or judicially.” … That agreement clearly obligates both husband and wife to indemnify Ohio Casualty for any sums it is required to pay on the bonds.

Faulkner v. State

156 Md. App. 615 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2004

New York does not confer upon the suspect immunity from subsequent lawful arrest. … At that point in time, the court recognized, Faulkner had the state of mind necessary to establish imperfect self-defense.

Candolfi v. Alterra Group

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2022

“‘[T]his Court will not disturb a contempt order absent an abuse of discretion or a clearly erroneous finding of fact upon which the contempt was imposed.’” Breona C. v. Rodney D., 253 Md. … West’s failure to appear at the May 20 hearing qualifies as direct contempt, and the court properly treated it as such. Hermina, 128 Md. App. at 587.

Lewis v. State

237 Md. App. 661 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2018

We also “accept the suppression court’s first- level factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and give due regard to the court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses.” Id. … Vol.), § 13-3313(a)(1) of the Health-General Article (a qualifying patient in possession of a permissible amount of marijuana “may not be subject to arrest”).

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).

White v. State

223 Md. App. 353 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2015

As in the prior trial, the State called several Bode Technology DNA analysts who assisted in the process for DNA analysis in E.L.’s case.10 Julie Ferragut, a senior DNA analyst at Bode Technology qualified as an expert … “We perform a de novo constitutional appraisal in light of the particular facts of the case at hand; in so doing, we accept a lower court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.”

Embrey v. Holly

48 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1981

Dixon suggested that the humor of the statement was not clearly discernible. He said he had a Delphic reaction to it. … In this Court, the appellants attack that testimony on the ground that the content of the telephone calls was clearly hearsay.

Belton & Worsley v. State

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.

Anne Arundel County Ethics Commission v. Dvorak

189 Md. App. 46 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 24, 2009

The finding of inordinate delay was not clearly erroneous. … Scheibe voir dire [sic] and qualified Mr. Dvorak and the County was present, no objection---- Did one of your counterparts, an associate Judge of this bench, Nancy Davis-Loomis address that issue? She sure did.

Jones v. State

178 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 2008

The Court has also stated that there is no unvarying formula or ritual required for the establishment of a foundation to impeach. … The Court qualified its holding by stating that “our holding is not applicable where there is no clearly independent area of inquiry or where failure to inquire into a possibly independent area of inquiry could create a gap

Adams v. State

192 Md. App. 469 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2010

That factual finding was not clearly erroneous. … The court responded: “He’s been qualified. This is his opinion. You will certainly be able to cross-examine him on it.”

Porter v. State

230 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 2016

It's about clearly -- thinking clearly. Q. And the hyperarousal or the hypervigilance that you mentioned earlier, how does that have any effect on one’s perception of the danger that they are in? … Porter’s] reference to needing a lawyer was not only qualified by the equivocal phrase ‘I guess,’ but was couched as a question.” The State also asserts that Ms.

Schmitt v. State

140 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2001

With respect to the admissibility of Detective Brubaker’s testimony, therefore, there clearly was no ultimate appellate prejudice. … When exactly is a place “so removed therefrom” as to qualify as “a different place?”

Stewart v. State

104 Md. App. 273 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1995

Nance established that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant “is subject to cross-examination at the trial where the prior statement is introduced.” 331 Md. at 569 , 629 A.2d … The prosecutor obviously had a hidden, albeit not well hidden, agenda and was clearly seeking to “milk” the prior statements for something other than mere impeachment.

Meek v. Linton

245 Md. App. 647 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2020

Clearly, the best interest of Mrs. Hansen would not involve actions that would place her health and well-being at risk of harm. … In our view, Mack is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2019

But no enacted legislation clearly or expressly countered the Attorney General’s opinion that local regulation was not preempted. … The qualifier “pertinent” indicates that the General Assembly does not envision blanket uniformity.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Smulyan

41 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1979

Finally, Carl- Heinmuller and Bernard Manekin, both qualified experts, gave their opinions as to value. … The record, however, does not establish, either as a matter of law or as an irrefutable matter of fact, that their 1971 appraisal fell within the bounds of that concept.

Marquardt v. Papenfuse

92 Md. App. 683 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1992

They allege that they are “immune” from land confiscation by deed expungement and that the court cannot expunge the deeds unless the State of Maryland files suit to effect such an expungement. … Lamson that no litigation could be instituted at the circuit court level in Calvert County that would establish their title.